257 F. Supp. 3d 165
D.P.R.2017Background
- Homeland Security agents executed an arrest warrant for Hernandez at his home early November 1, 2016; officers forcibly entered after being locked out and observed Hernandez in a wheelchair and two others fleeing.
- Officers saw a Glock and several cell phones and cash in plain view on first-floor surfaces; they then performed a protective sweep of the premises assisted by a CBP canine (Honzo).
- During the sweep, the dog alerted to a sports bag in a second-floor child’s bedroom containing four kilograms of cocaine and to a box in the master closet containing substantial cash; officers also opened a Ford cargo van in the garage and observed ~1,700 kg of bales that appeared to be cocaine.
- Officers searched a Toyota Sienna in the driveway (using keys found inside) and found a Glock, cash, GPS, and IDs; they also opened a Mercedes but seized nothing from it.
- After a call to an AUSA, agents conducted a full warrantless search of the house lasting about two hours; defendant moved to suppress various items seized during the entry, sweep, vehicle searches, and full search.
- The court held a suppression hearing and ruled: protective sweep and vehicle searches largely lawful, but items uncovered only during the later full warrantless search (and certain items inside containers/bags opened during the sweep) must be suppressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of initial protective sweep | Gov: fleeing occupants, weapon in plain view, and drug-trade indicia justified a protective sweep (including second floor and garage) | Hernandez: sweep exceeded Buie scope; canine use and searching areas where people could not hide exceeded doctrine | Court: Protective sweep justified by specific and articulable facts; extension to 2nd floor and garage reasonable; canine use not disallowed here |
| Seizure of items in small containers/bags during sweep | Gov: plain view or canine alert justified seizure | Hernandez: opening bags/boxes exceeded sweep scope (too small to hide person) | Court: Items inside bag (4 kg cocaine) and cash inside shoebox in closet suppressed—opening containers exceeded protective-sweep scope |
| Warrantless searches of vehicles (cargo van in garage and minivan in driveway) | Gov: probable cause (sand/water, hot hoods, plain view indicators) and automobile exception justified searches; exigency present for van | Hernandez: searches lacked probable cause and garage/driveway location requires exigency | Court: Probable cause existed; automobile exception applied; searches of cargo van and Sienna upheld |
| Full warrantless search of house after sweep | Gov: continued exigent circumstances and prosecutor authorization justified further search | Hernandez: perimeter was secure after sweep; no exigency; AUSA had no authority to waive warrant requirement | Held: No exigent circumstances remained; full warrantless search invalid; all evidence discovered for first time during that full search suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (warrant requirement and reasonableness framework)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (entry to execute valid arrest warrant at suspect’s dwelling)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (protective sweep doctrine: limited, cursory search for persons posing danger)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (use of drug-sniffing dog on curtilage is a Fourth Amendment search)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (flight as factor supporting reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Winston, 444 F.3d 115 (First Circuit on protective sweep scope and deference to experienced officers)
- United States v. Caggiano, 899 F.2d 99 (firearms and phones as tools of the drug trade; plain view seizure)