United States v. Chagoya-Morales
859 F.3d 411
7th Cir.2017Background
- Jose Chagoya-Morales, a Mexican national previously deported after an Illinois aggravated robbery conviction, was stopped as a passenger in a vehicle in Chicago in January 2015; officers found a small amount of marijuana and arrested him.
- At the station officers learned of his prior removal and contacted ICE; a federal grand jury later indicted him for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
- Chagoya-Morales moved to suppress evidence of his identity and immigration status as fruits of an unlawful traffic stop; the district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing and accepted a conditional guilty plea preserving the suppression and sentencing issues on appeal.
- The PSR applied a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because of his prior Illinois aggravated robbery conviction; the district court agreed and calculated a Guidelines range of 57–71 months (after adjustments), then sentenced him to 48 months (below the Guidelines).
- On appeal he argued (1) the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing and should have suppressed identity/immigration evidence; (2) the 16-level enhancement was improper (void for vagueness under Johnson and/or aggravated robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence); and (3) his sentence was procedurally or substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred by denying suppression without an evidentiary hearing and admitting identity/immigration evidence | Chagoya-Morales: traffic stop was unlawful; identity/status are fruits of the stop and must be suppressed | Government: identity evidence is not suppressible; even if stop unlawful, identity can be proved and suppression would only postpone prosecution | Court: affirmed denial; identity/immigration evidence admissible and no hearing was required because suppression would be inappropriate and of little deterrent value |
| Whether the 16-level § 2L1.2 enhancement is void for vagueness under Johnson | Chagoya-Morales: Johnson renders the force-clause vague and inapplicable to Guidelines (due process/vagueness) | Government: Beckles forecloses vagueness challenge to Guidelines; enhancement stands | Court: rejected vagueness claim because Beckles bars vagueness challenges to the Guidelines |
| Whether Illinois aggravated robbery qualifies as a "crime of violence" under § 2L1.2’s force clause | Chagoya-Morales: aggravated robbery does not require the use/attempted use/threatened use of force as defined by Johnson I | Government: Illinois statute requires use or threatened imminent use of force and aggravating weapon-related allegation increases force element | Court: held aggravated robbery fits § 2L1.2 force clause (threat/use of physical force suffices under Johnson I) and affirmed the 16-level enhancement |
| Whether the 48-month sentence was procedurally or substantively unreasonable | Chagoya-Morales: district court failed to properly consider § 3553(a) factors and the defendant's post-conviction rehabilitation | Government: sentence was within court's discretion and court considered § 3553(a) factors and mitigators | Court: sentence was procedurally sound and substantively reasonable; district court adequately considered § 3553(a) and justified a below-Guidelines variance |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Garcia-Garcia, 633 F.3d 608 (7th Cir.) (supports rule that identity is not suppressible)
- INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984) (statement that identity/"body" is not suppressible as fruit of unlawful arrest)
- United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2009) (identity evidence admissible; exclusion imposes heavy social costs)
- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., 542 U.S. 177 (2004) (constitution permits requiring suspect to disclose identity)
- Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016) (exclusionary rule is a last resort; Brown factors for attenuation)
- Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (defining physical force threshold for crimes of violence)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under Due Process)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006) (exclusionary rule in limited circumstances; social costs vs deterrence analysis)