931 F.3d 134
1st Cir.2019Background
- HSI agents executed a valid arrest warrant at Hernandez‑Mieses's two‑story home at ~5:45 a.m.; agent Nazario anticipated weapons, narcotics, and cash and a canine (Honzo) accompanied the team.
- Upon arrival officers saw shadows inside, forced entry through broken frosted‑glass, chased two fleeing individuals, and secured Hernandez‑Mieses in his wheelchair.
- On the first floor agents observed a gun on the kitchen counter and four cellphones and cash on the dining table; they then conducted a protective sweep (with Honzo) of the house.
- During the sweep Honzo alerted to a bag with ~4 kg of cocaine upstairs and to a shoebox in a master bedroom closet containing $34,000; in the attached garage agents opened an unlocked cargo van and observed ~1,700 kg of narcotics.
- Agents later unlocked and searched a minivan in the driveway (using keys seen on the table) and found a loaded Glock, money, and ID.
- District court suppressed some upstairs items and the post‑attorney warrantless search but denied suppression of first‑floor gun/cellphones/cash, the upstairs cellphones, the cargo‑van drugs, and items from the minivan; First Circuit affirms in part, vacates/remands in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agents’ subjective intent to search vitiates warrantless arrest entry | Hernandez‑Mieses: agents intended a warrantless house search from the start, tainting the operation | Government: intent irrelevant; agents had arrest warrant and Nazario’s briefing did not show improper intent | Rejected: subjective motive does not invalidate objectively reasonable search; no evidence of pretextual intent |
| Lawfulness of seizing gun, cellphones, and cash from first floor (plain view) | N/A (challenged generally) | Items were in plain view from a lawful position during execution of arrest warrant | Affirmed: plain‑view seizure lawful given lawful presence and incriminating nature of items |
| Lawfulness of seizing upstairs cellphones and cargo‑van drugs (protective sweep) | Hernandez‑Mieses: sweep exceeded Buie limits in scope/duration; items seized unlawfully | Government: reasonable suspicion supported sweep; items in plain view during sweep | Vacated/remanded: reasonable suspicion existed but record lacks findings on duration/scope and number of officers; court to make additional factual findings and reassess legality |
| Lawfulness of searching minivan in driveway (automobile exception / curtilage) | Hernandez‑Mieses: minivan was within curtilage; automobile exception insufficient without lawful access | Government/district court: automobile exception justified search | Vacated/remanded: district court must apply Dunn curtilage factors and decide if vehicle was within curtilage and whether lawful access/probable cause existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless home entries for arrests are presumptively unreasonable without authority)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (protective‑sweep rule: limited, cursory search if reasonable suspicion of danger)
- Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 1663 (automobile exception does not justify intrusion into home/curtilage without lawful right of access)
- United States v. Infante, 701 F.3d 386 (First Circuit: exceptions to warrant requirement)
- United States v. Winston, 444 F.3d 115 (First Circuit: burden on government for warrantless searches)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (plain‑view/plain‑feel principles)