3:21-cr-00320
D.P.R.Jun 29, 2023Background
- PRPB executed a Puerto Rico arrest warrant at an Orocovis residence on May 7, 2021 using a SWAT team and a flashbang; they had not obtained a search warrant for the house.
- The residence had been rented (initially via Airbnb) by an escort on behalf of others; Cotto‑Cruz testified he lived there for months and had visitors, and he was arrested inside the home.
- During a brief post‑entry sweep and subsequent processing, officers and a later entering evidence officer (with a K‑9) observed and photographed drugs, packaging, scales, cash, firearms/ammunition, and other items across multiple rooms.
- Cotto‑Cruz moved to suppress photographs, seized evidence, and statements, arguing he had a reasonable expectation of privacy, entry lacked proper basis, and seized items exceeded plain‑view/protective‑sweep authority.
- Magistrate judge held suppression hearing and recommended granting the motion in part and denying it in part: several items (e.g., bathroom knife; currency in toilet tank; contents of certain closed containers/boxes; powders from two bowls; items from a covered bucket; journal contents and cigar‑box contents) suppressed; remaining items and statements admitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonable expectation of privacy / standing | Gov’t: Cotto‑Cruz lacked objective expectation because he was a fugitive, not on lease, used false names, and used premises for criminal activity | Cotto‑Cruz: lived at the residence for months as an overnight/long‑term guest and thus had Fourth Amendment protection | Held: Cotto‑Cruz had both subjective and objectively reasonable expectation of privacy (standing granted) |
| Authority to enter under arrest warrant (residence & presence) | Gov’t: officers had probable cause/reasonable belief he lived and was inside (vehicles linked to him, neighbor ID, owner confirmation, movement seen) | Cotto‑Cruz: warrant listed different address; no “rock‑solid” indicia he resided or was present at Orocovis | Held: officers had probable cause to believe Cotto‑Cruz resided at and was present in the Orocovis residence, so Payton entry lawful |
| Scope of warrantless sweep (protective sweep vs exigency) | Gov’t: sweep of non‑immediate areas justified by risk (fugitive/violent suspect) and exigency (toilets flushing suggested evidence destruction) | Cotto‑Cruz: no articulable facts supported belief others dangerous remained; evidence could not be destroyed after arrest; sweeping beyond adjoining areas unlawful | Held: limited sweep of areas immediately adjoining arrest permissible; broader sweep lacked articulable facts for officer‑safety justification, but brief limited sweep to prevent imminent destruction of evidence (sound of flushing) was permitted |
| Plain‑view seizures and opening/handling of containers | Gov’t: items plainly visible during sweep or discovered in course of securing premises; could seize contraband and paraphernalia | Cotto‑Cruz: officers exceeded plain‑view by opening containers, removing lids, or moving objects (e.g., toilet tank bag, closed box with cash, Johnnie Walker box, covered bowls, bucket, journals) | Held: many items in plain view properly seized (drugs, paraphernalia, firearms magazine, scales, cash visible, etc.); items obtained only after opening closed containers or manipulating objects not in plain view were suppressed (toilet‑tank bag, contents of closed box, bullets in Johnnie Walker box, powders in two covered bowls, contents of closed bucket, journals and cigar‑box contents, bathroom knife) |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (arrest warrant authorizes entry into residence when officers reasonably believe suspect is inside)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (protective sweep doctrine and limits on in‑home sweeps incident to arrest)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (plain‑view seizure requires lawful vantage, lawful access, and immediately apparent incriminating nature)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (exigent‑circumstances exception when police reasonably believe evidence is being destroyed and police did not create exigency)
- Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (seizure of a leaking package containing apparent contraband and limits on opening containers)
- Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) (canine sniff and limits on exposing non‑contraband by searches)
- Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987) (moving items to view identifying marks may constitute a search beyond plain view)
- Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990) (overnight guest has reasonable expectation of privacy in host's home)
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001) (probationers have diminished expectations; discussed in context of differing rights)
- United States v. Delgado‑Perez, 867 F.3d 244 (1st Cir. 2017) (protective sweep requires articulable facts that additional persons present pose danger)
- United States v. Serrano‑Acevedo, 892 F.3d 454 (1st Cir. 2018) (no protective sweep where facts did not support reasonable belief of other dangerous persons)
- United States v. Hernandez‑Mieses, 931 F.3d 134 (1st Cir. 2019) (examples of facts sufficient to support reasonable suspicion for protective sweep)
- United States v. Werra, 638 F.3d 326 (1st Cir. 2011) (officers must point to evidence suggesting suspect present; discussion of Payton standards)
- United States v. Jones, 523 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2008) (hotel manager identification and other corroborating facts can support belief suspect resides/is present)
- United States v. Polanco, 634 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2011) (small baggies can be immediately incriminating packaging for heroin)