United States v. Christine Estrada
683 F. App'x 308
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Estrada pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute ≥500g methamphetamine but reserved the right to appeal the denial of part of her suppression motion; she received the 10-year statutory minimum.
- A DPS investigator, Lindley, obtained a state-court order authorizing a mobile tracking device on Estrada’s Escalade based on reasonable suspicion; Lindley later said he would have pursued physical surveillance if the device had been denied.
- Lindley used the device briefly (Nov. 8) to identify travel patterns, then conducted unaided physical surveillance (Nov. 18 & 20) observing suspected drug transactions and obtaining a sworn admission from Estrada at the station; officers also found incriminating texts on a phone.
- After arrest, officers performed a knock-and-talk at a North Lake residence; the resident consented and officers observed money, gun safes, and suspected drugs; a subsequent warrant (not referencing tracking reports) led to a search yielding ~600g meth, LSD, weapons, cash, and a notebook.
- Estrada moved to suppress the stash-house evidence as tainted by the illegal tracking device; the district court (adopting the magistrate’s R&R) denied suppression in part, concluding an independent source supported the search; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence from the stash house must be suppressed as fruit of an illegal mobile tracking device | Estrada: all evidence from the stash house was fruit of the illegal tracking and must be suppressed | Government: even if tracking was unlawful, the independent source doctrine (and attenuation/inevitable discovery doctrines) permit admission because unaided surveillance and Estrada’s admissions supplied probable cause | Affirmed: evidence admissible under independent source doctrine |
| Whether the warrant affidavit, purged of tainted tracking information, established probable cause | Estrada: affidavit relied on tracking-derived facts and thus lacked probable cause | Government: affidavit relied on unaided surveillance and Estrada’s statements, which suffice | Held: first prong satisfied as a matter of law |
| Whether the illegal tracking motivated officers to seek the warrant (effect prong) | Estrada: tracking reports influenced decision to conduct knock-and-talk and obtain warrant | Government: officers would have conducted physical surveillance and knock-and-talk regardless | Held: no clear or obvious error in finding officers were not motivated by tracking; plain-error review shows no harmful error |
| Whether consent at the knock-and-talk or other rulings were properly preserved/challenged | Estrada: challenges consent and related rulings | Government: consent issue not preserved; other rulings unchallenged | Held: appellate challenges to consent deemed waived/abandoned; no plain error found |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (GPS/mobile tracking device can constitute a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Restrepo, 966 F.2d 964 (5th Cir. 1992) (independent source doctrine explained)
- United States v. Hassan, 83 F.3d 693 (5th Cir. 1996) (two-part independent-source analysis: probable cause after purging taint; effect of illegal entry)
- United States v. Grosenheider, 200 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2000) (district court must find agents would have sought warrant absent illegal conduct)
- United States v. Escalante-Reyes, 689 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2012) (plain-error standard elements and application)