United States v. Giovani Crisolis-Gonzalez
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2451
8th Cir.2014Background
- HSI agents, acting on a confidential informant tip that Crisolis-Gonzalez trafficked meth, surveilled an apartment complex, located a vehicle they associated with him, and performed a knock-and-talk at an apartment where roommates lived.
- A roommate, Reyes-Savedra, opened the door; agents asked in Spanish to come in and speak; Reyes-Savedra stepped aside and allowed them entry.
- Inside were a woman (Crisolis-Gonzalez’s girlfriend), a baby, and later agents observed hesitance from occupants that suggested others might be present; agents drew weapons and conducted a protective sweep, producing Crisolis-Gonzalez and another man, both handcuffed.
- Agents asked names and immigration status; Crisolis-Gonzalez admitted illegal entry, was asked for consent to search, and—after being told what would be sought—volunteered that a gun lay under his mattress.
- Crisolis-Gonzalez signed a Spanish consent-to-search form; the agents searched his bedroom and found meth, paraphernalia, cash, and a fake Social Security card. He was then Mirandized, waived, further questioned, indicted, and convicted; he appealed the denial of his suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of entry via knock-and-talk | Entry was obtained by deception: agent asked to speak with Reyes-Savedra but really sought Crisolis-Gonzalez; Reyes-Savedra lacked authority to consent | Agent’s request was not misleading and matched investigatory purpose; Reyes-Savedra shared a bedroom and thus had common authority | Entry valid: no misrepresentation; Reyes-Savedra had common authority to admit officers |
| Protective sweep of premises | Sweep was unlawful—no arrest and no specific articulable facts of danger | Officers knew of alleged drugs and firearms, observed occupants’ evasive behavior (hesitation, head turn), creating reasonable concern for safety | Sweep valid under Buie: articulable facts supported belief others posing danger might be present |
| Pre-Miranda statement about gun under mattress | Questioning immigration/status and describing things to be searched elicited the gun admission in violation of Miranda’s interrogation rule | The gun admission was volunteered in response to agent’s explanation of what they'd search for, not to custodial interrogation about immigration | Statement admissible: not the functional equivalent of interrogation; volunteered admission |
| Voluntariness of consent to search bedroom | Consent involuntary due to handcuffing and coercive environment | Occupants’ cuffs had been removed and guns holstered; Crisolis-Gonzalez asked consequences of refusing and read/ signed the Spanish consent form | Consent voluntary under totality of circumstances |
| Validity of post-Miranda waiver/statements (fruit of poisonous tree) | Any illegality tainted Miranda waiver and subsequent statements; suppress all incriminating statements | No earlier illegality; Miranda warnings were administered twice and waiver was knowing and voluntary | Waiver valid; post-Miranda statements admissible; suppression denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Matlock v. United States, 415 U.S. 164 (third-party consent to search may be valid based on common authority)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (protective sweeps permissible with articulable facts indicating danger)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (Miranda interrogation includes express questioning and its functional equivalent)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (fruit of the poisonous tree and attenuation principles)
- United States v. Torres-Lona, 491 F.3d 750 (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Briley, 726 F.2d 1301 (officer misrepresentations can vitiate consent but officers need not disclose all investigatory motives)