United States v. Roberto Ortiz-Cervantes
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15818
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- DEA applied for a warrant in the Northern District of Iowa (NDIa) to search a house at 3308 Santa Rita Court in South Sioux City, Nebraska. The warrant was approved by an NDIa magistrate judge.
- Affidavit described ten controlled methamphetamine buys from Sept. 2013 to May 13, 2014; phone records and visits linked seller Victor Gonzalez to Jose Orellana and to Ortiz-Cervantes, who was described as living in the house basement.
- A proffer interview identified Ortiz-Cervantes as a meth seller who met buyers at the 3308 Santa Rita Court residence. Agents executed the warrant and found Ortiz-Cervantes and over 500 grams of methamphetamine.
- Ortiz-Cervantes was indicted in the District of Nebraska and moved to suppress, arguing (1) the affidavit lacked probable cause/stale information and (2) the NDIa magistrate lacked authority because he was not properly cross-designated to issue warrants for property in the District of Nebraska. The district court denied suppression; defendant pleaded guilty and appealed.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed probable cause de novo (facts for clear error) and addressed whether the magistrate’s lack of proper cross-designation required suppression or whether the Leon good-faith exception saved the admission of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to search 3308 Santa Rita Court | Ortiz-Cervantes: affidavit relied on stale and weak links; insufficient to show fair probability contraband would be at the house | Government: series of controlled buys, phone links, visits, and proffer show ongoing conspiracy and sufficient nexus to the residence | Probable cause existed under the totality of the circumstances; staleness not fatal given ongoing narcotics activity |
| Authority of issuing magistrate (cross-designation) | Ortiz-Cervantes: magistrate sat in NDIa and lacked authority to issue warrant for Nebraska property; warrant invalid | Government: Judicial Conference designated the position; agents and magistrate reasonably believed cross-designation allowed issuance | Magistrate was not properly cross-designated under 28 U.S.C. §631(a), so issuance violated Rule 41, but error did not require suppression |
| Effect of invalid warrant on admissibility | Ortiz-Cervantes: invalid warrant is constitutional equivalent of warrantless search; evidence must be suppressed | Government: Leon good-faith exception applies; officers reasonably relied on magistrate’s apparent authority; no deliberate misrepresentation or abandonment of judicial role | Good-faith exception applies; evidence admissible because officers and magistrate reasonably believed cross-designation existed and judge did not wholly abandon judicial role |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jeanetta, 533 F.3d 651 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review and staleness principles in narcotics investigations)
- United States v. Proell, 485 F.3d 427 (8th Cir. 2007) (applying Leon good-faith exception to warrants later held invalid)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances standard for probable cause)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusionary rule’s deterrent rationale and limits)
- United States v. Long, 797 F.3d 558 (8th Cir. 2015) (when a judge ‘wholly abandons’ judicial role)
- United States v. Decker, 956 F.2d 773 (8th Cir. 1992) (examples of judicial abandonment warranting suppression)
- United States v. Hyten, 5 F.3d 1154 (8th Cir. 1993) (Rule 41 violations require prejudice or recklessness for exclusion)
- United States v. Colbert, 828 F.3d 718 (8th Cir. 2016) (staleness not dispositive where enterprise shows ongoing activity)
- United States v. Palega, 556 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2009) (staleness analysis and continuity of criminal activity)