United States v. Garcia-Hernandez
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20667
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Ramirez-Garcia admitted Garcia-Hernandez partnered in a Northeast cocaine franchise; Ramirez oversaw distribution.
- An informant triggered a Manchester, NH drug-trafficking investigation; Kalantzis aided the probe under Garcia-Hernandez's directions.
- Authorities obtained a search warrant for Garcia-Hernandez's residence and planned execution on Easter Sunday; Kalantzis entered to verify arrival.
- The entry employed an armored vehicle, battering ram, noise-flash devices, and 18 officers; 8 adults and 3 children present; cash and drugs found.
- A separate search of Garcia-Hernandez's Cadillac yielded 30 kilograms of cocaine in the trunk; total seizure supported multiple charges.
- Garcia-Hernandez moved to suppress the seized evidence as a knock-and-announce violation; district court denied suppression and found no remedy under Hudson.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hudson bars suppression for knock-and-announce violations | Garcia-Hernandez argues suppression is required under Hudson. | Garcia-Hernandez contends exclusion is not available; no-knock justified by exigencies. | Hudson bars suppression as to knock-and-announce violations. |
| Whether the no-knock entry affected Fourth Amendment reasonableness | Garcia-Hernandez claims excessive force violated Fourth Amendment protections. | Defendant argues reasonableness is a separate issue; evidence remains admissible. | Fruits of the search not subject to suppression for excessive-force framing. |
| Whether the district court properly applied the three-level aggravating 3B1.1(b) adjustment | Garcia-Hernandez challenges supervision of five participants. | District court correctly found he managed at least one other participant. | 3B1.1(b) applies if defendant managed one or more other participants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (U.S. 2006) (exclusionary rule not applicable to knock-and-announce violations)
- United States v. Jones, 523 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2008) (no-knock rationale in suppression analysis)
- United States v. Pelletier, 469 F.3d 194 (1st Cir. 2006) (knock-and-announce rule; non-consensual entry considerations)
- Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1997) (danger or futility exceptions to knock-and-announce)
- United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65 (U.S. 1998) (excessive force in executing a search; fruits not suppressed)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (qualified immunity precedents flexibility; two-step approach not rigid)