United States v. Hever Guzman-Guerrero, 706 F. App'x 374

Background

Guzman-Guerrero was arrested and officers briefly "peeked" into his backpack and observed eight cellophane-wrapped bricks that appeared to be cocaine before obtaining a search warrant.
Officers then applied for and obtained a warrant that recited the peek among other facts; they seized cocaine from the backpack pursuant to that warrant.
Guzman-Guerrero moved to suppress the cocaine, arguing the warrant was tainted by the initial warrantless peek and the evidence should be excluded.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the suppression motion, finding the cocaine admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine.
On appeal the Ninth Circuit reviewed the legal application de novo and factual findings for clear error; the court concluded the case was properly resolved on the independent-source doctrine rather than inevitable discovery.
Guzman-Guerrero conceded that officers would have sought a warrant even without the peek; the court therefore found the warrant was issued on an independent source and affirmed denial of suppression and the guilty plea.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence observed during an illegal peek taints a later search warrant so as to require suppression	The peek tainted the warrant affidavit and the subsequent search, so the cocaine must be excluded	The cocaine was admissible because it was discovered pursuant to a valid warrant and, alternatively, under inevitable discovery	The court held the independent-source doctrine applied: warrant would have been sought and issued absent the peek, so evidence admissible
Whether this is an inevitable discovery case	Evidence would not have been discovered but for the initial illegal peek; suppression required	Government argued inevitable discovery, but court declined to decide on that ground because independent source sufficed	Court determined the case need not be resolved on inevitable discovery because the independent-source doctrine controlled
Whether the magistrate would have issued the warrant absent the illegal peek	The peek was necessary to establish probable cause	The remaining affidavit facts (with illicitly obtained facts excised) still established probable cause	Court held probable cause existed even with the peeked facts removed, so magistrate would have issued warrant
Whether officers would have sought a warrant absent the peek	Arguably officers sought the warrant only because they saw the contraband	Guzman-Guerrero conceded officers would have sought a warrant even without the peek	Court relied on concession and held the government met Murray’s second requirement

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Lundin, 817 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2016) (distinguishes inevitable discovery where evidence was seized pursuant to a valid warrant)
United States v. Merriweather, 777 F.2d 503 (9th Cir. 1985) (discusses seizure pursuant to a valid warrant and exclusionary-rule limits)
Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988) (establishes independent-source doctrine and its two requirements)
United States v. Heckenkamp, 482 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2007) (applies independent-source analysis to warrants and excising tainted information)
United States v. Duran-Orozco, 192 F.3d 1277 (9th Cir. 1999) (remanded for factfinding on whether officers would have sought a warrant)
United States v. Holzman, 871 F.2d 1496 (9th Cir. 1989) (same)
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (discusses plain-view and related Fourth Amendment principles)