914 F.3d 319
4th Cir.2019Background
- HSI agents and local officer (one Spanish-speaking) conducted a mid-morning "knock and talk" at a mobile home; officers were in plain clothes with visible firearms and a badge; corporal’s body cam recorded the encounter.
- Corporal Hernandez twice demanded the door be opened, once saying in Spanish, “Open the door or we’re going to knock it down,” then identifying as police. Occupant Amaryllis Powell (Azua’s fiancée) opened the door after Azua told her to.
- Powell verbally and gestured consented to let officers inside after they asked if they could come in because it was cold; three officers entered and spoke conversationally with residents.
- Agents questioned residents, gave Azua an immigration questionnaire, then escorted him briefly to the agent’s car to take fingerprints; a warrants check produced deportation warrants and Azua was arrested.
- Azua was indicted for illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. §1326), moved to suppress statements and evidence based on coerced entry and custodial interrogation (Miranda), the district court denied suppression, jury convicted, sentence time served, deported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of consent to enter (Fourth Amendment) | Consent was coerced by threat to break down door and implied authority, so entry without warrant was unlawful | Powell voluntarily consented after officers conversed calmly; threat was isolated and did not vitiate consent | Consent was voluntary; entry lawful; district court not clearly erroneous |
| Custodial interrogation / Miranda (Fifth Amendment) | Post-entry questioning was custodial because initial threat and lack of advisement made Azua feel he had to comply; no one told him he was free to leave | Questioning occurred in living room, conversational, with others present; Azua was not deprived of freedom to a degree associated with formal arrest | Not custodial; Miranda not required; totality shows no custody |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntariness of consent determined from totality of circumstances)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (warrantless entry permissible when voluntary consent obtained from person with common authority)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (consent involuntary where officers falsely claim to have a warrant)
- INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (consensual responses to police questioning do not by themselves indicate seizure)
- United States v. Hashime, 734 F.3d 278 (custody inquiry asks whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)