United States v. Christopher Esqueda, 88 F.4th 818

Defendant Christopher Esqueda was indicted for possessing a firearm as a felon after an undercover operation in his motel room.
Undercover officers and an informant purchased a firearm from Esqueda and his co-defendant; Esqueda and his associate consented to the officers' entry.
The officers secretly recorded the transaction using concealed audio-video equipment, capturing the firearm exchange.
Esqueda moved to suppress the video evidence, arguing it violated his Fourth Amendment rights as an unlawful warrantless search.
The district court denied the motion to suppress; Esqueda entered a conditional guilty plea reserving his right to appeal.
On appeal, Esqueda argued the secret recording constituted an unlicensed physical intrusion under recent Supreme Court precedents.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether secret audio-video recording by officers in a consensual undercover operation is a Fourth Amendment search (trespassory test)	Recording exceeded the scope of consent, constituting an unlicensed search under Jones/Jardines.	Consent to physical entry covers recording; longstanding precedent allows it.	No Fourth Amendment search; recording within consensual entry
Applicability of pre-Katz Supreme Court precedent	Jardines and Jones supersede older cases due to new property-based framework.	On Lee and Lopez remain binding unless overruled by Supreme Court.	Pre-Katz precedent (On Lee, Lopez) directly applies and controls
Whether recording in a living space (motel room) changes the analysis	Home/living space entitled to heightened protection compared to businesses.	Nature of space irrelevant if entry and recording consistent with consent.	No distinction for living spaces when entry is consensual
Use of recording for identification post-encounter	Identification was fruit of unconstitutional recording.	No violation, as the original recording was not a search; identification admissible.	Irrelevant; no underlying unreasonable search.

Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427 (secret recording by undercover agent in consensual entry does not violate Fourth Amendment)
On Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747 (no trespass where agent secretly records encounter while lawfully present)
Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (no Fourth Amendment violation when information comes from an invited informant inside the protected area)
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (unlicensed physical intrusion on curtilage for investigation is a search)
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (revitalized property-based test for Fourth Amendment searches)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (created reasonable expectation of privacy test for Fourth Amendment searches)