United States v. Ruiz
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 473
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Ruiz conditionally pled guilty to possessing with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and appealed suppression rulings.
- Evidence challenged includes drugs recovered from a rented airplane stored in a private hangar and from Ruiz's former Norwich, Connecticut residence.
- AMOC flagged Ruiz’s flight as suspicious and ICE involved, leading to further investigation and police involvement at the Liberal, Kansas airport.
- At Lyddon Aero Center, a drug dog alerted to narcotics near Ruiz’s airplane; a warrant led to seizure of 28 kilo-sized cocaine bundles in the hangar.
- Ruiz had rented a house in Norwich and later relocated; letters stated he would abandon the lease, with the landlord storing his belongings.
- Police later searched the Norwich residence, seizing cocaine, cash, and other items, after the landlord requested a search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the airplane search violated the Fourth Amendment | Ruiz argues the affidavit omitted privacy and dog-reliability facts; seeks Franks relief. | Ruiz contends lack of privacy in hangar and unreliable Kilo undermined probable cause. | No Fourth Amendment violation; omissions not material to probable cause. |
| Whether Ruiz had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the north hangar | Ruiz had a privacy interest akin to a tenant; hangar access and control rights were limited. | Lyddon controlled the hangar; Ruiz had no post-hours access, so no reasonable expectation. | Ruiz had no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the hangar. |
| Whether omission/reliability of Kilo undermined probable cause | Past false alerts undermine dog reliability; information omitted from affidavit was material. | Kilo’s certification suffices; no requirement to disclose every false alert. | Omission immaterial; canine certification supported probable cause. |
| Whether the rental residence evidence was unlawfully obtained given abandonment | Police entry was based on a warrant; owner-abored property raises privacy concerns. | Abandonment ended Ruiz’s privacy interest; landlord could consent to searches. | Abandoned property exception permits warrantless searches; seizure valid. |
| Whether Ruiz can raise new suppression arguments on appeal about personal belongings | New argument avoids waiver concerns and attacks the search scope. | Waived on appeal for lack of district-court briefing; not preserved. | Argument waived; district court ruling stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kennedy v. United States, 131 F.3d 1371 (10th Cir. 1997) (canine reliability generally proven by certification)
- Ludwig v. United States, 641 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2011) (reliability of dog’s alerts not requiring full historical data)
- United States v. Campbell, 603 F.3d 1218 (10th Cir. 2010) (Franks framework for omissions and false statements)
- United States v. Garcia-Zambrano, 530 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2008) (Franks serves for material omissions; probability standard)
- Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990) (overnight guest privacy in host’s home)
- Porter v. United States, 701 F.2d 1158 (6th Cir. 1983) (hangar privacy depends on control and access)
- United States v. Flynn, 309 F.3d 736 (10th Cir. 2002) (abandoned property exception under Fourth Amendment)