United States v. Luis Avila-Hernandez
672 F. App'x 378
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- FBI and Texas DPS investigated Rio Grande Valley kidnappings; witness identified Castillo, Avila, and others.
- Officers (DPS and FBI) had an arrest warrant for Castillo and went to Castillo’s sister Laura’s house after midnight to arrest him.
- Laura told officers Castillo was not there, consented to a search after officers said they had information and would be quiet; officers found Avila hiding in the master bedroom who identified himself as "Mario Lopez."
- Avila admitted he was in the U.S. illegally; taken to a Border Patrol Station, processed, identified as Luis Avila-Hernandez, read Miranda rights in Spanish, waived them, and made incriminating statements about the kidnapping.
- Avila moved to suppress his statements arguing Laura’s consent was involuntary (deceit/claim of authority) and that his detention/statements were therefore unlawful; the district court denied suppression and Avila was convicted; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness of Laura's consent to search | Laura’s consent was involuntary due to officer deceit/trickery and implied claim of authority (warrant) | Consent was voluntary; officers legitimately sought Castillo and did not use deception or claim a warrant | Consent voluntary — officers’ undisclosed knowledge did not equal deceit; no evidence they claimed a warrant or coerced consent |
| Lawfulness of Avila's detention and admissibility of statements | Detention and subsequent statements were tainted by unlawful search/consent and thus should be suppressed | Because the search and detention were lawful, statements (after Miranda waiver) are admissible | Detention lawful (protective sweep + probable cause from alienage admission); Miranda waiver arguments waived on appeal; statements admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (consent search voluntariness standard)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (consent involuntary when obtained via asserted warrant)
- United States v. Davis, 749 F.2d 292 (officer deception required to invalidate consent)
- United States v. Jenkins, 46 F.3d 447 (factors relevant to voluntariness of consent)
- United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433 (appellate review standard for suppression rulings)