United States v. Miguel Escamilla, Jr.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5485
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Border Patrol agents stopped a white Ford F-150 on private OKM Ranch (≈30 miles from the Mexico border) after sensors and agents observed two trucks traveling together and other suspicious indicators (temporary tags, atypical oilfield appearance, tandem travel).
- Agents searched the F-150 with Escamilla’s consent and found signs suggesting the truck was a "clone" (modified/hollowed fuel cell, generic vests); agents asked to look at Escamilla’s flip phone, and he handed it over without objection; the phone was returned to him after the on-site inspection.
- A Border Patrol K-9 later "alerted, but nothing solid." Meanwhile the lead vehicle (F-250) fled, crashed, and agents recovered marijuana and black tar heroin; the driver fled.
- At the station, DEA Agent Antonelli obtained the phone (Escamilla disclaimed ownership and left it with agents), manually read contact info, and later (five days post-arrest) ran a Cellebrite forensic extraction; AT&T records showed heavy communication between the two phones.
- District court denied suppression, concluding the stop and on-scene phone-search consent were lawful and that Escamilla abandoned the phone so Antonelli’s Cellebrite search was permissible. Jury convicted Escamilla; on appeal the Fifth Circuit found Antonelli’s immediate post-arrest manual search unconstitutional but held the error harmless because the same evidence was obtained from the broken F-250 phone and the Cellebrite extraction (which Escamilla lacked standing to challenge).
Issues
| Issue | Escamilla's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of initial vehicle stop | Stop lacked reasonable suspicion; facts insufficient | Sensors, proximity to border, route reputation, tandem travel, vehicle appearance, driver behavior supported reasonable suspicion | Stop was justified at inception (constitutional) |
| Duration/extension of the stop | K-9 "nothing solid" dispelled suspicion; agents should have released him | K-9 alert to residual odor did not dispel suspicion; continued investigation was related and timely | Stop duration (~24 minutes) and post-sniff delay reasonable |
| Voluntariness of on-scene consent to search phone | Consent coerced by two armed agents in secluded pre-dawn stop; defendant didn’t knowingly waive rights | Defendant actively handed the phone over after a simple request; no coercion or threats | On-scene consent was voluntary; search at ranch lawful |
| Post-arrest searches of phone (station manual search and later Cellebrite) | Both searches unconstitutional; evidence from them should be suppressed | Manual search justified by consent; Cellebrite justified by abandonment and duplicate evidence | Station manual search unconstitutional (consent limited and ended when phone returned); Cellebrite search permissible because Escamilla abandoned the phone; admission of manual-search-derived evidence harmless error |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (recognizes reasonable-suspicion standard for investigatory stops)
- Brignoni-Ponce v. United States, 422 U.S. 873 (factors relevant to roving Border Patrol stops near the border)
- United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500 (en banc 5th Cir.) (stop scope/duration must be related to investigatory justification)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (cell-phone searches incident to arrest generally require a warrant)
- United States v. Powell, 732 F.3d 361 (5th Cir.) (disclaiming ownership can constitute abandonment eliminating standing to challenge search)
- United States v. Zavala, 541 F.3d 562 (5th Cir.) (harmless-error standard for wrongly admitted evidence)