United States v. Sanchez
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16113
10th Cir.2013Background
- DEA obtained a warrant in June 2010 to search 4113 Barbara Vista based on intercepted calls linking Adriana Amaya to a drug conspiracy and phone-company records listing that address for her cell number. Agents believed Amaya lived at that address, but she did not—her father Edwin Sanchez did.
- The affidavit contained several inaccurate statements (e.g., claims of video and physical surveillance, multiple security cameras, an eight-foot cinderblock fence) that proved incorrect when the warrant was executed. The affiant testified some errors were inadvertent.
- During the search officers found ~550 pounds of marijuana hidden in a shed and garage, packaging materials, scales, a press, and tools consistent with smuggling (e.g., rubber-cutting tool and tires). Keys to outbuildings and prepaid phones were found inside the house.
- Phone records showed 128 calls between two prepaid phones found at Sanchez’s home and a phone subscribed to Alejandro Felix, later convicted of marijuana trafficking; Sanchez claimed the calls related to selling cars. Border-entry records showed Sanchez returned from Mexico the day before the search.
- At trial Sanchez testified he lacked knowledge of the marijuana; the jury convicted him of possession with intent to distribute 100+ kg of marijuana. At sentencing the court denied a minor-role reduction, applied a two-level obstruction enhancement for perjury, and imposed 78 months (bottom of the guideline range).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of search warrant / suppression | Government: Affidavit supplied probable cause to search 4113 Barbara Vista based on intercepted calls and subscriber records tying Amaya to that address; magistrate’s finding entitled to deference | Sanchez: Affidavit contained patently false statements and no probable cause to search his home because agents had no information about him and Amaya did not actually reside there | Court: Errors were inadvertent (no Franks violation); even excluding falsehoods affidavit still supplied probable cause to search based on phone subscription and database records; search valid |
| Admissibility of phone records linking Sanchez to Felix | Government: Records are relevant to show a relationship with a known trafficker, making knowledge of the stash house more probable | Sanchez: Records were unfairly prejudicial and invited conviction by association | Court: Admission not an abuse of discretion; probative value outweighed any risk of unfair prejudice given the context and defense theory |
| Minor-role reduction under USSG §3B1.2 | Sanchez: He merely maintained a stash house and was less culpable than most participants | Government: Evidence supported a significant role; Sanchez failed to prove he was less culpable | Court: Defendant failed to carry burden; district court’s denial not clearly erroneous |
| Obstruction enhancement for perjury under USSG §3C1.1 | Sanchez: Court relied improperly on jury verdict alone to find perjury, chilling the right to testify | Government: Court made independent factual finding of perjured testimony beyond the verdict | Held: Court made an independent finding identifying the perjurious statement and did not base it solely on the verdict; enhancement proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (test for whether false statements in affidavit require suppression)
- United States v. Sanchez, 555 F.3d 910 (10th Cir. 2009) (deference to magistrate’s probable-cause finding and inference that residences of distribution suspects may contain evidence)
- United States v. Roach, 582 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2009) (rejection of warrant where affidavit failed to tie verification methods to specific addresses)
- United States v. Espinoza, 244 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2001) (risk of unfair prejudice from evidence suggesting widespread family involvement in drug trafficking)
- United States v. Markum, 4 F.3d 891 (10th Cir. 1993) (need for independent finding of perjury beyond jury verdict)