United States v. Quintero
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16332
8th Cir.2011Background
- Manuel and Michelle Quintero were charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribute methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and conspiracy to engage in money laundering.
- The district court granted suppression of evidence seized during a warrantless hotel-room search, finding Michelle did not voluntarily consent.
- Hotel security reported a used methamphetamine lightbulb; subsequent surveillance led to a late-night knock-and-talk at the Quinteros' room after a five-and-a-half-hour gap.
- During entry, Michelle appeared undressed; officers obtained her consent after pressure, misrepresentations, and coercive conduct.
- Officer Weber admitted to misrepresenting facts (e.g., identity and scope) and to prolonging the initial encounter to facilitate a full search.
- Following a warrantless search, investigators found methamphetamine; a subsequent search warrant uncovered over 200 grams of methamphetamine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Michelle's consent was voluntary | Quintero argues consent was involuntary due to coercion and delay | Quintero argues consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances | Consent involuntary; suppression affirmed |
| Did the district court properly weigh the totality of the circumstances | Government contends proper factors were weighed; non-exhaustive list applied | Quintero asserts coercive factors outweighed other considerations | Court properly weighed factors; coercive environment found |
| Was the standard of review appropriate given the recording of the encounter | Government seeks de novo review based on recording as complete record | Quintero argues voluntariness is factual, reviewed for clear error | Voluntariness reviewed for clear error; recording does not warrant de novo review |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Garcia, 613 F.3d 749 (8th Cir. 2010) (consent to search is a factual question reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Saenz, 474 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. 2007) (voluntariness of consent is reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Golinveaux, 611 F.3d 956 (8th Cir. 2010) (non-exhaustive factors guide totality of circumstances analysis)
- United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 598 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. 2010) (defendant-specific factors and environment are relevant to voluntariness)
- United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (Supreme Court 2002) (coercion analysis hinges on presence of force or overwhelming pressure)
- United States v. Va Lerie, 424 F.3d 694 (8th Cir. 2005) (defendant-specific factors can weigh in voluntariness analysis)