United States v. Roberto Pabon
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17471
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- On March 21, 2014 Vermont troopers stopped a rental car driven by Jaiden Paige with Roberto Pabon as a passenger after corroborated tips linked Paige to overnight drug runs in which associates sometimes “body‑packed” narcotics.
- Canine alerts and prior investigative information produced probable cause; officers arrested Pabon after a canine alerted to the passenger side where Pabon had been sitting.
- Officers obtained a search warrant for an x‑ray of Pabon; two hospital doctors reported the x‑ray showed no definitive foreign bodies, though one doctor warned x‑rays can miss packed narcotics.
- Police sought and initially were refused a CT‑scan warrant; later, after additional hospital observations and an reviewing trooper’s assessment of the x‑ray, a CT warrant issued the same day (within ~20 hours of arrest). The CT scan showed multiple densities consistent with body packing; Pabon ingested laxatives and later passed packages of cocaine and heroin.
- Pabon moved to suppress the recovered narcotics, arguing (1) probable cause dissipated after the negative x‑ray and he should have been released, and (2) police unreasonably delayed a judicial probable‑cause determination under Gerstein/McLaughlin (including a § 48‑hour claim), so suppression was required.
- The district court denied suppression; the Second Circuit affirmed, holding officers retained reasonable grounds to detain, McLaughlin’s 48‑hour violation (if any) did not causally produce the seized evidence, and there was no unreasonable delay under Gerstein/McLaughlin.
Issues
| Issue | Pabon’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probable cause dissipated after hospital x‑ray such that police had to release Pabon | X‑ray reports said no foreign bodies; thus probable cause dissipated and continued detention violated the Fourth Amendment | X‑ray was inconclusive; combined facts (prior tips, canine alerts, Pabon’s behavior, medical testimony on x‑ray limits) preserved probable cause | No dissipation; officers reasonably concluded probable cause persisted and detention was lawful |
| Whether delay in obtaining a judicial probable‑cause determination beyond 48 hours (McLaughlin) requires suppression | Failure to obtain Gerstein determination within 48 hours warrants suppression of evidence seized thereafter | Evidence (CT and initial drug packages) was obtained well within 48 hours, so any later timing error did not cause the discovery | Even assuming a McLaughlin timing violation, suppression not warranted because seized evidence was produced before the 48‑hour point (no causal link) |
| Whether police unreasonably delayed the Gerstein hearing by gathering evidence (McLaughlin’s “unreasonable delay” standard) | After negative x‑ray, police used detention time to collect evidence to justify the arrest, so delay was for evidentiary gathering and unreasonable | Officers pursued reasonable, ongoing investigation and medical evaluation (CT) to protect detainee health and public safety; warrants and medical input show good‑faith investigation | No unreasonable delay: officers acted reasonably to seek CT and related warrants; investigatory activity was lawful and not aimed at subverting a prompt judicial check |
| Whether issuance of warrants to x‑ray/CT constituted the Gerstein judicial determination | Pabon contends earlier search‑warrant approvals satisfied Gerstein’s requirement for a judicial probable‑cause determination | Government argued search‑warrant findings amounted to judicial probable‑cause determinations to detain | Search‑warrant probable‑cause determinations are distinct from Gerstein’s required probable‑cause‑to‑detain determination; warrants do not substitute for Gerstein review |
Key Cases Cited
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (Fourth Amendment requires prompt judicial determination of probable cause after warrantless arrest)
- County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (a probable‑cause determination within 48 hours generally satisfies Gerstein; unreasonable delay analysis explained)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (standards for reviewing probable cause and reasonable‑suspicion determinations)
- Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (probable cause standard for arrests is practical, totality‑of‑circumstances inquiry)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (but‑for causation and exclusionary‑rule limits)
- Powell v. Nevada, 511 U.S. 79 (McLaughlin timing issues and remedy considerations)
- Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911 (post‑arrest probable‑cause determination focus under Fourth Amendment)