United States v. Julio Herrera Cano
17-50131
| 5th Cir. | Dec 6, 2017Background
- Defendant Julio Cesar Herrera Cano was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) for being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm; he appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence.
- Officers were summoned by Ana Valenzuela (Cano’s girlfriend) to retrieve her belongings from the home; an officer knew of her prior presence and that she stored items there.
- Officers entered the residence with Valenzuela’s consent and conducted a protective sweep during which evidence was discovered.
- Cano was present during the entry and argues he implicitly refused consent through his behavior; he also contends Valenzuela lacked authority to consent.
- The district court denied the suppression motion; the Fifth Circuit reviewed factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether third-party consent was valid | Valenzuela lacked authority to consent to entry | Valenzuela had common authority; officers reasonably believed she did | Consent valid; officers reasonably believed she had authority |
| Whether Cano’s conduct implicitly refused consent | Cano’s stressed behavior amounted to refusal | Only an express refusal by a physically present resident defeats co-occupant consent | Implicit refusal insufficient; no express refusal shown |
| Lawfulness of entry | Entry invalid if consent absent, so subsequent sweep invalid | Entry lawful based on Valenzuela’s consent and officers’ reasonable belief | Entry lawful; protective sweep therefore permissible |
| Standard of review on suppression rulings | N/A (procedural) | Factual findings reviewed for clear error; constitutionality de novo | Applied clear-error to facts and de novo to legal conclusions |
Key Cases Cited
- Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (third-party common authority can justify consented search)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (reasonable belief in third-party authority can validate consent)
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (express refusal by present co-occupant can defeat third-party consent)
- United States v. Perez, 484 F.3d 735 (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Gibbs, 421 F.3d 352 (deference to district court factfinding on suppression when based on live testimony)
- United States v. Shabazz, 993 F.2d 431 (view evidence in light most favorable to the government on suppression review)