United States v. Rivera
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10465
1st Cir.2016Background
- Rivera (longtime drug offender) was linked by a confidential informant (CS) and cooperating witnesses to drug sales from a Springfield stash house at 6 Beaumont St.; Rivera's photo identified as the seller.
- Records and surveillance tied Rivera to a residence at 56 Merwin St. (owned by his girlfriend); the CS and surveillance observed Rivera and vehicles associated with him at Merwin St.
- The CS performed a controlled buy: timeline showed Rivera's Infiniti at Merwin St. shortly before a call from the CS, Rivera drove to Beaumont, coordinated the sale by text/phone, then met the CS in a Walgreens lot to complete the purchase.
- DEA Agent Barron affidavit recounted events, cited his training/experience and typical places dealers keep evidence (homes: cash, records, weapons, valuables), and sought warrants for both Merwin (home) and Beaumont (stash) properties.
- Warrants issued; search of Merwin St. produced $132,571, money-order receipts, and a loaded 9mm; search of Beaumont produced substantial cocaine/crack. Rivera pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession but reserved the right to appeal denial of suppression and denial of a Franks hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Rivera's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause nexus for home search | Affidavit showed drug dealing occurred at the stash house, not at Rivera's home, so no fair probability of finding evidence at Merwin St. | Totality of circumstances (timeline, surveillance, CS call/text, agent experience) supports common-sense inference that Rivera used his home to communicate and would store records/cash/weapons there. | Affirmed: affidavit established a fair probability that evidence would be at the home; probable cause existed. |
| Franks hearing (alleged false or reckless affidavit statement) | Barron's use of the word “uses” falsely/improperly implied Rivera sold drugs from his home; thus Rivera made a substantial showing of recklessness/falsehood requiring an evidentiary hearing. | Even if “uses” were false/reckless, the remaining affidavit facts (controlled buy timeline, surveillance, phone/text contacts) suffice to establish probable cause, so no Franks hearing required. | Affirmed: Rivera failed to show that disputed statement was necessary to the probable-cause finding; no Franks hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (establishes standard for requiring an evidentiary hearing on alleged falsehoods in warrant affidavit)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule for warrants later found defective)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
- United States v. Barnes, 492 F.3d 33 (observing that selling drugs shortly after leaving home supports inference evidence will be at the home)
- United States v. Khounsavanh, 113 F.3d 279 (viewing a controlled buy is not per se sufficient for a home search; use totality analysis)
- United States v. Vongkaysone, 434 F.3d 68 (probable-cause and review standards)
- United States v. Feliz, 182 F.3d 82 (commonsense nexus inferences about where narcotics evidence is kept)
- United States v. Floyd, 740 F.3d 22 (officer training/experience may inform probable-cause determinations)
- McGregor v. United States, 650 F.3d 813 (standards for reviewing suppression rulings)
- United States v. Joubert, 778 F.3d 247 (probable cause requires both commission and nexus elements)