United States v. Marin Moreno
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23949
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Marin was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, based on heroin found in perfume canisters in her motel room.
- DEA agents, relying on information from a Colombian source, surveilled Marin at the Metro Motel in Queens as the delivery of heroin to occur that day.
- Marin was observed entering Room 166 and resisting when agents approached; interior and exterior doors created concern for possible destruction of evidence.
- Agents obtained Marin’s consent to search after a brief custodial encounter; she was informed and translated a written consent form, which she signed.
- A search uncovered four perfume canisters containing heroin, later weighed at about 1209 grams with high purity; Marin claimed the drugs were planted by others.
- The district court denied the suppression motion, finding exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and that Marin’s consent was voluntary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exigent circumstances justified entry without a warrant | Marin contends the entry was unlawful and tainted the search | Moreno argues no exigency existed to permit warrantless entry | Exigency supported warrantless entry; no clear error |
| Whether Marin’s consent to search was voluntary | Consent may have been coerced by prior unlawful entry and arrest | Consent was freely given despite initial forceful entry | Consent was voluntary; taint not demonstrated |
Key Cases Cited
- Marin Moreno v. United States, 916 F.2d 766 (2d Cir. 1990) (MacDonald en banc factors for exigency)
- United States v. Gordils, 982 F.2d 64 (2d Cir. 1992) (exigent circumstances in narcotics cases)
- Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (2011) (neutral knock-and-talk; exigency when destruction suspected)
- United States v. Klump, 536 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2008) (defining moment-of-entry standard for exigency)
- United States v. Worjloh, 546 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing suppression findings)
- United States v. Ansaldi, 372 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2004) (voluntariness and consent analysis framework)
- United States v. Isiofia, 370 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2004) (voluntariness of consent standard)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (reasonable scope of police action in home entry)
- Sibron v. United States, 392 U.S. 40 (1968) (probative in assessing mens rea and flight indicators)
- King v. Kentucky, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (2011) (context for exigency and consent landscape)