United States v. Cotto-Cruz
3:21-cr-00320
| D.P.R. | Mar 4, 2025Background
- Defendant Carlos Cotto-Cruz was arrested on May 7, 2021, at a house in Orocovis, Puerto Rico, while he was a fugitive, with an outstanding arrest warrant issued by Puerto Rico authorities.
- The house where Cotto-Cruz was arrested was rented in another person's name, but he claimed to have resided there for months with the consent of the lessee’s sister.
- Law enforcement agents entered the house based on observations linking defendant to vehicles at the property and information from the property owner, executing a warrantless search upon hearing suspicious flushing, fearing evidence was being destroyed.
- During the arrest and subsequent searches, agents seized various drugs, firearms, ammunition, and drug paraphernalia, with agents conducting a protective sweep and collecting evidence allegedly in plain view.
- Cotto-Cruz moved to suppress the evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds; the magistrate judge recommended partial suppression, leading both parties to file objections regarding privacy expectations and the legality of the search and seizures.
- The district court reviewed the magistrate's findings de novo, ultimately adopting the recommendations and granting in part, denying in part, the motion to suppress.
Issues
| Issue | Govt's Argument | Cotto-Cruz's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cotto-Cruz had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the residence | No expectation due to lack of legal right or explicit owner/lessee consent | Reasonable expectation as an overnight guest with indirect consent | Cotto-Cruz had a reasonable expectation of privacy under Minnesota v. Olson |
| Was probable cause established to enter and arrest at the house | Yes; based on vehicle links, owner info, and neighborhood inquiries | No; law enforcement testimony unreliable, evidence insufficient | Magistrate judge’s credibility findings upheld; probable cause established |
| Legality and scope of warrantless protective sweep and seizure | Full house sweep justified for officer safety, evidence in plain view lawfully seized | Scope excessive; sweep only justified for adjoining areas or preventing destruction of evidence, not all subsequent entries | Sweep beyond limited areas not justified for safety, but seizure justified for preventing evidence destruction; evidence in plain view lawfully seized during initial entry |
| Credibility of defendant versus law enforcement testimony | Law enforcement credible; defendant’s claims inconsistent with physical evidence | Defendant disputes officer credibility, claims evidence was not in plain view | Magistrate found law enforcement more credible; no reason to disturb that determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (overnight guests have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their host's home)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (Fourth Amendment analysis focuses on privacy expectations, not just property rights)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (Fourth Amendment protects reasonable expectations of privacy)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (protective sweep doctrine allows limited searches incident to arrest to ensure safety)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (arrest warrants and entry into homes)
- Byrd v. United States, 584 U.S. 395 (privacy interest in property against government intrusion even without being a listed renter)