252 F. Supp. 3d 79
D.P.R.2017Background
- Defendant Hilton Cordero‑Rosario pled guilty to one count of possession of child pornography but reserved the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion; the First Circuit found two Puerto Rico Police Department (PRPD) searches (Feb. 4 and Feb. 26, 2011) lacked probable cause and vacated the suppression ruling, remanding to determine whether federal evidence obtained via his then‑wife Deborah Martorell’s consent was tainted.
- Federal agents (a so‑called “taint team”) sought Martorell’s consent to search the family desktop (seized by PRPD); Martorell had already seen state‑seized images and soon after signed a consent form (Apr. 15, 2011) and later turned over other devices, including a 320 GB external hard drive (collected Apr. 21, 2011).
- A Homeland Security agent independently interviewed the alleged minor victim (MMTH) in May 2011; MMTH identified a Sony Cyber‑Shot camera she said was used for some images and later turned it over voluntarily through her mother.
- Magistrate Judge Carreño‑Coll recommended suppressing evidence from the family computer (consented to by Martorell) but admitting the 320 GB external hard drive, MMTH’s live testimony, and the Cyber‑Shot camera; the district judge adopted most factual findings but, on de novo review, suppressed both the computer evidence and the external hard drive while admitting MMTH’s testimony and the camera.
- The court’s attenuation/taint analysis applied Brown v. Illinois factors (temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, and flagrancy/purpose of misconduct), Finucan considerations for third‑party consent, and Ceccolini for live‑witness testimony, balancing deterrence costs of exclusion against social costs of suppressing reliable evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence obtained via Martorell’s consent to search the family computer was tainted by prior unlawful PRPD searches | Gov't: consent and subsequent federal investigation were sufficiently independent; suppression unnecessary | Cordero: Martorell’s consent flowed from state‑seized images and thus was tainted | Court: Consent to search the family computer was tainted; computer evidence suppressed |
| Whether the 320 GB external hard drive was fruit of the poisonous tree | Gov't: Martorell voluntarily turned over the hard drive after reflection; evidence attenuated | Cordero: Turnover occurred in close temporal proximity and was part of same consent episode; tainted | Court: External hard drive was obtained by exploitation of illegality and suppressed |
| Whether MMTH’s live testimony is tainted and should be excluded | Gov't: MMTH would have come forward voluntarily; testimony attenuated from illegality | Cordero: Testimony stems from unlawfully seized materials and is tainted | Court: MMTH’s live testimony and the Cyber‑Shot camera admissible; testimony resulted from detached reflection and voluntary cooperation |
| Whether the government’s investigatory conduct warrants exclusion for deterrence | Cordero: Federal agents exploited state misconduct; exclusion appropriate | Gov't: No deliberate lawless conduct by federal agents to deter; exclusion too draconian | Court: Federal investigation exhibited prosecutorial reliance on tainted state leads such that deterrence favors exclusion for the computer and hard drive evidence, but not for live testimony/camera |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (attenuation test: temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, and purpose/flagrancy of official misconduct)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruits‑of‑the‑poisonous‑tree: whether later evidence was obtained by exploitation of illegality)
- United States v. Finucan, 708 F.2d 838 (1st Cir. 1983) (factors for assessing third‑party consent after illegal search)
- United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978) (live‑witness testimony often requires closer link to illegality before exclusion)
- United States v. Camacho, 661 F.3d 718 (1st Cir. 2011) (causation and attenuation analysis for derivative evidence)
- Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (1984) (scope of exclusionary rule for indirect fruits)
- Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939) (foundational "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine)
- Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016) (importance of flagrancy/purpose of misconduct in attenuation/stop‑and‑identify context)