70 F.4th 106
2d Cir.2023Background
- Molina and two co-conspirators robbed Verizon stores in New Milford, CT (Aug. 10, 2017) and Mahopac, NY (Feb. 15, 2019); both robberies shared modus operandi (zip-ties, gun brandishment, same vehicle) and were captured on surveillance video.
- Investigators linked suspects by fingerprint, an anonymous tip, toll records, historical CSLI, and later by DNA on a zip-tie; multiple phone numbers (-3972, -1912, -2454, -4879) were central to the cellphone-based inquiry.
- The FBI obtained March 29 and April 23, 2019 federal warrants for expansive historical CSLI and toll records for Molina’s -2454 phone; those affidavits contained conceded material misstatements (misdated records, misattributed communications, and unsupported location assertions).
- The district court found the affidavits contained material falsehoods but denied Molina’s suppression motion under the inevitable discovery doctrine, and did not hold a Franks hearing into the affiant’s state of mind.
- A jury convicted Molina on Hobbs Act robbery counts (Counts I, II, IV, V) and §924(c) brandishing counts (Counts III, VI); the district court instructed jurors that “a gun is a firearm,” and denied Molina’s requested clarification that pellet/imitations are not firearms.
- The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s inevitable-discovery ruling and remanded for a Franks hearing (material misstatements were not excused by inevitable discovery); it also vacated the §924(c) convictions because the instruction “a gun is a firearm” conflicted with precedent and was not harmless error.
Issues
| Issue | Molina's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the inevitable discovery doctrine justified denying suppression of evidence obtained via warrants whose affidavits contained conceded material misstatements | Inevitable discovery does not apply; the government only could have obtained the evidence by fixing affidavit flaws exposed by Molina, so suppression is required or at least a Franks hearing | The government would inevitably have obtained the same phone/location evidence (e.g., corrected T‑Mobile records and lawful search of seized phones) even absent the defects, so suppression was unnecessary | Inevitable discovery did not apply; remanded for a Franks hearing because the corrected affidavits (with misstatements excised) do not establish probable cause |
| Whether the district court’s jury instruction that “a gun is a firearm” (and refusal to add that pellet/imitations are not firearms) was legally erroneous and harmless | The instruction equated all guns with statutory “firearms,” misleading the jury and undermining Molina’s defense that the items brandished might be non‑firearms (e.g., pellet/replica) | The error was harmless because evidence showed the objects were firearms | Instruction was erroneous under Circuit precedent (“not all guns are firearms”); error was not shown harmless on the record; §924(c) convictions (Counts III, VI) vacated and remanded (possible retrial) |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (establishes requirement for a hearing where affidavit contains intentional or reckless falsehoods material to probable cause)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (recognizes inevitable discovery doctrine as exception to exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (CSLI acquisition is a Fourth Amendment search; privacy concerns inform scope)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable cause evaluated under totality of the circumstances)
- United States v. Rosa, 507 F.3d 142 (2d Cir.) (not all guns qualify as firearms for §924(c); certain replicas/BB guns are not firearms)
- United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir.) (articulates high‑confidence standard for inevitable discovery)
- United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir.) (distinguishes negligent or mistaken affidavit statements from intentional/reckless falsehoods under Franks)