United States v. Nicolas Cobo-Cobo
873 F.3d 613
8th Cir.2017Background
- DHS special agents assisting a local stabbing investigation encountered Elias Mendoza‑Marcos at a laundromat; they suspected he was undocumented when he lacked ID and admitted to being from Guatemala without documentation.
- Mendoza‑Marcos was arrested; he and an apartment roommate allegedly consented to agents entering the apartment with him to retrieve belongings and to accompany him to the immigration office.
- Agents located several occupants, including Nicolas Cobo‑Cobo, who was awakened and escorted to the living room; none produced government IDs and agents arrested them as undocumented.
- An employment ID from Carlson Building Maintenance was placed in Cobo‑Cobo’s immigration (alien) file after the arrest; over four years later a deportation officer obtained Cobo‑Cobo’s I‑9 from Carlson and discovered a social‑security number that did not belong to him, leading to an indictment for misuse of a SSN.
- Cobo‑Cobo moved to suppress evidence obtained from the apartment entry and detention, arguing the entry lacked valid consent and his seizure lacked reasonable suspicion; the district court denied suppression and the denial was appealed after a conditional guilty plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of apartment entry | Mendoza‑Marcos did not consent; agents entered without permission | Agents testified Mendoza‑Marcos consented and roommate did not object | Court found consent by Mendoza‑Marcos and roommate credible; denial of suppression affirmed |
| Voluntariness of consent | Consent involuntary because Mendoza‑Marcos was under arrest, not Mirandized, not told he could refuse | Officers need not give Miranda or advise right to refuse; facts show no coercion | Court held consent voluntary (no clear error) |
| Seizure of Cobo‑Cobo (reasonable suspicion) | Seizure based only on Hispanic heritage and proximity; insufficient | Agents had additional factors: unrelated males living together, one roommate already arrested, lack of English, landlord known to rent to undocumented | Court held agents had reasonable, articulable suspicion; seizure lawful |
| Fruit of unconstitutional search (inevitable discovery) | If entry/seizure unlawful, evidence should be suppressed | Government argued independent/deportation investigation inevitably discovered I‑9 | Court did not decide inevitability because it upheld consent and reasonable suspicion |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (consent by third party with common authority can justify warrantless entry)
- Brignoni‑Ponce v. United States, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) (ethnicity alone cannot justify immigration stops; heritage may be a relevant factor)
- Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979) (mere proximity to a suspect does not authorize search or seizure of a third party)
- United States v. Comstock, 531 F.3d 667 (8th Cir. 2008) (discussing voluntariness of consent absent Miranda warnings)
- United States v. Wolff, 830 F.3d 755 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard: factual findings on suppression reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Varner, 481 F.3d 569 (8th Cir. 2007) (officers may accompany arrestee into premises to ensure safety and preserve arrest integrity)