United States v. Laureano-Castellon
1:10-cr-00083
| N.D. Ga. | Mar 7, 2011Background
- Defendant Carlos Laureano-Castellon arrived at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta from Guadalajara and was referred to Baggage Secondary for inspection.
- CBP officer reviewed travel documents, ran a criminal history, and found a narcotics-related arrest in Defendant's record.
- Luggage was opened; heavier-than-expected picture frames and a figurine were found, leading to x-ray and drilling revealing white crystalline methamphetamine inside.
- Defendant was handcuffed and placed in a holding cell; CBP conducted a pat-down and a partial strip search due to suspected concealment in the body area.
- Partial strip search occurred under Chief Pugh's authorization; no contraband was found, and Defendant did not resist or object.
- ICE officers later advised Miranda rights in English, obtained a written waiver, and Defendant admitted to transporting a suitcase with narcotics but not its specifics.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the border search and pat-down were reasonable | Laureano-Castellon appellate briefs assert searches were invalid. | Defendant contends the strip search violated Fourth Amendment protections at the border. | Partial strip search upheld; routine border search: valid; strip search requires reasonable suspicion |
| Whether the partial strip search was constitutionally justified | CBP facts justify suspicion due to narcotics in luggage and travel from source country. | No specific, articulable facts tying to internal concealment; intrusive search improper. | Magistrate did not err; reasonable suspicion supported by narcotics findings and defendant's record |
| Whether statements to ICE were voluntary and admissible | Statements were voluntary given Miranda warnings and lack of coercion. | Argues taint from prior searches could render statements involuntary. | Statements voluntary; Miranda complied; no fruits of poisonous tree suppression |
| Whether statements were tainted by prior unlawful conduct | No suppression due to lawful border and limited strip search. | Novelty of search could taint subsequent statements. | No taint; suppression not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. King, 509 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2007) (Fourth Amendment at border differs from interior searches)
- United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (Supreme Court 1985) (routine border searches do not require reasonable suspicion)
- Denson v. United States, 574 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2009) (strip searches require reasonable suspicion and particularized basis)
- United States v. Bernal-Benitez, 594 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2010) (two-part test for custodial statements: Miranda compliance and voluntariness)
- United States v. Jones, 32 F.3d 1512 (11th Cir. 1994) (custodial statements require voluntariness inquiry under Miranda)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (Supreme Court 1984) (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies to derivative evidence)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (Supreme Court 1961) (exclusionary rule applies to federal and state actions)