United States v. Juan
5:19-cr-04032
| N.D. Iowa | Sep 9, 2019Background:
- NCMEC notified law enforcement that a Facebook account (Diego Juan) uploaded and sent a child‑pornography video; Facebook provided an IP address tied to a Doon, Iowa residence and to an account holder Catarina Pablo; Juan was an "authorized user."
- A state magistrate issued a search warrant for the Doon residence on Jan 16, 2019; officers executed the warrant on Jan 18 after planning with multiple agencies (DCI and HSI).
- Officers breached the front door with a battering ram; multiple armed agents were on scene. Juan was taken outside to an unmarked car for a ~30 minute interview with DCI Special Agent Burger and HSI Agent Rocha (Spanish translation); agents twice told Juan he was not under arrest and free to leave. Juan admitted sending the video during that interview.
- After the interview Juan remained at the residence; ten minutes later HSI agents handcuffed and detained him on a civil immigration detainer.
- On May 9, 2019, after state charges were dismissed, Burger transported Juan (in restraints, belly chain and handcuffs) to his initial federal appearance; during the drive Juan spontaneously discussed his charges and the video and Burger asked clarifying questions.
- The magistrate judge recommended granting the suppression motion in part (suppress a narrowly identified exchange about how many times Juan watched the video) and denying it in all other respects; the warrant and two‑day execution delay were upheld.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements during the Jan 18 search‑warrant execution required Miranda warnings (custody/interrogation) | Gov't: Interview was noncustodial; Miranda not required | Juan: Environment and show of force rendered him "in custody" and statements must be suppressed | Not custodial; agents told Juan he was not under arrest and he could leave; most statements admissible except one exchange (comment that he "watched the videos too" and question about how many times) which was interrogation and suppressed |
| Whether statements during May 9 transport required Miranda warnings | Gov't: Conversation was noninterrogative or noncustodial; Miranda not required | Juan: He was in custody and subject to interrogation without warnings | Custodial (formal arrest and restraints) but the colloquy was largely spontaneous and clarifying; only the narrow exchange during transport identified above required suppression |
| Whether the warrant affidavit established probable cause to search the residence and electronics | Gov't: Tip from Facebook/NCMEC corroborated by agent viewing the video and linking account/IP to the residence; probable cause existed | Juan: Tip chain (Facebook → NCMEC → police) rendered affidavit unreliable | Probable cause existed based on corroboration (agent viewed video; IP/account/residence links); good‑faith Leon alternative also available |
| Whether two‑day delay in executing a warrant that commanded "immediate" search required suppression | Gov't: Short planning delay for safety and logistics; execution within reasonable time | Juan: Warrant language required immediate execution; delay invalidates the search | Two‑day delay was reasonable, did not dissipate probable cause, and did not require suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings)
- Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012) (custody analysis considers whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (objective custody test)
- California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (1983) (brief, noncoercive questioning need not be treated as custodial)
- United States v. Axsom, 289 F.3d 496 (8th Cir. 2002) (nonexhaustive custody factors for Miranda analysis)
- United States v. Williams, 760 F.3d 811 (8th Cir. 2014) (warrant execution is inherently police‑dominated; custody analysis focuses on interrogation circumstances)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality‑of‑the‑circumstances test for probable cause to issue a warrant)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Perrin, 659 F.3d 718 (8th Cir. 2011) (no custody during execution where occupants were told they were free to leave and interrogation circumstances were limited)