United States v. Delgado-Perez, 867 F.3d 244

Background

Delgado was arrested at his Puerto Rico residence on a New York drug-trafficking warrant; officers performed a warrantless "protective sweep" inside the home and observed a firearm magazine on a dresser.
After the sweep, an officer asked Delgado if there were weapons; Delgado acknowledged a firearm in a dresser drawer; officers retrieved a loaded Sig Sauer and rendered it safe.
Delgado moved to suppress evidence from the entry and subsequent search; a magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing, found the sweep and subsequent consent lawful, and recommended denying suppression.
Delgado pleaded guilty to being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, expressly reserving the right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion; the District Court adopted the R&R and denied suppression.
On appeal the First Circuit considered (1) whether Delgado waived appellate review by not objecting to the magistrate judge's R&R and (2) whether the protective sweep and the ensuing discovery of the magazine and firearm were lawful or required suppression.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver of suppression challenge by failing to object to magistrate judge R&R	Delgado argued he preserved the right to appeal the suppression ruling by expressly reserving it at the plea colloquy.	Government argued Delgado waived review by not filing objections to the R&R.	Court held government waived its waiver argument because the District Court expressly told Delgado he retained the right to appeal and the government did not object at the plea hearing.
Lawfulness of protective sweep under Buie/Terry reasonable-suspicion standard	Delgado argued sweep lacked articulable facts to suspect another person posed danger, so it was unlawful.	Government argued officers had reasonable suspicion (drug-trafficking link to weapons, adjoining apartment, rebar gate, security cameras, Delgado’s surrender).	Court held sweep unlawful: facts were insufficiently particularized to justify a Buie protective sweep.
Whether magazine and dresser firearm are fruits of unlawful sweep (taint/consent)	Delgado argued both magazine and firearm were fruits of the unlawful sweep and must be suppressed.	Government argued Delgado later consented to the search, so the firearm was admissible (and magazine was found in plain view).	Court held the magazine was the direct fruit of the illegal sweep and the firearm was tainted by that sweep; consent was significantly influenced by the prior illegality, so both must be excluded.
Inevitable discovery and exigent-circumstances exceptions	Delgado contended neither exception applies because government could not show lawful inevitable discovery or an independent exigency.	Government argued the firearm would inevitably have been discovered once Delgado consented to a full-residence search and alternatively that exigent circumstances justified seizing the gun.	Court rejected both argument: government failed to meet the burden for inevitable discovery and did not show an independent exigency untangled from the tainted information.

Key Cases Cited

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (physical entry of home is central Fourth Amendment concern)
Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (protective-sweep limits and reasonable-suspicion standard)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (reasonable-suspicion standard for limited intrusions)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (scope of search incident to arrest)
New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 (1990) (fruits-of-illegality suppression principles)
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (factors for attenuation and taint analysis)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (but-for and attenuation inquiry for derivative evidence)
United States v. Winston, 444 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2006) (upholding protective sweep on particularized facts)
United States v. Lawlor, 406 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2005) (protective sweep upheld where violence and patterns supported suspicion)
United States v. Martins, 413 F.3d 139 (1st Cir. 2005) (ensemble of facts can justify sweep)
United States v. Cordero-Rosario, 786 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2015) (prior illegality can significantly influence subsequent consent)
United States v. Infante, 701 F.3d 386 (1st Cir. 2012) (warrantless home searches presumptively unreasonable)