892 F.3d 454
1st Cir.2018Background
- June 17, 2013 armed bank robbery in San Lorenzo, Puerto Rico; two suspects fled in a white van.
- Law enforcement used a confidential informant and cell-site data to track two phones; one phone became stationary at a three‑story house.
- SWAT approached the house hours later; they heard activity, breached the door, detained occupants, and conducted a sweep during which they observed money.
- After the sweep, agents (with Diaz handcuffed outside) obtained verbal consent from Diaz and a later written consent from his wife; FBI then recovered about $24,000 and a pistol box.
- Diaz moved to suppress evidence from the warrantless sweep and the subsequent consent search; district court denied the motion.
- Diaz and Serrano were convicted; on appeal the First Circuit reversed Diaz’s conviction (suppression error) and affirmed Serrano’s (any hearsay errors harmless).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the warrantless entry/sweep of Diaz's home lawful as a protective sweep? | Diaz: sweep was unconstitutional; no articulable facts suggesting a third, armed person remained inside. | Govt: sweep permissible as a protective sweep (and earlier advanced hot‑pursuit theory below). | Reversed: protective‑sweep exception not met; no articulable facts to justify belief a third armed person remained. |
| Was Diaz’s post‑sweep consent to search the home valid and attenuated from the illegal sweep? | Diaz: consent was tainted by the illegal sweep and his custody; therefore evidence should be suppressed. | Govt: consent cured or attenuated the prior illegality. | Reversed: consent was likely the fruit of the illegal sweep; government failed to show attenuation—evidence suppressed. |
| Was the admission of evidence from the home harmless error? | Diaz: items (initialed bank bands, cash, pistol case) were highly probative and central; error prejudicial. | Govt: other evidence (cell‑site, jailhouse admission) established participation and made error harmless. | Reversed: error not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; vacate and remand for new proceedings. |
| Were asserted hearsay statements at Serrano’s trial prejudicial? | Serrano: multiple testimonial references to an informant and out‑of‑court statements were inadmissible hearsay. | Govt: court struck the most damaging remark and gave curative instructions; other evidence against Serrano was strong. | Affirmed: any hearsay error was harmless given overwhelming evidence (cash, gun, shoes). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Delgado-Pérez, 867 F.3d 244 (1st Cir. 2017) (protective‑sweep doctrine and taint/attenuation analysis)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (protective sweep standard for searches incident to in‑home arrests)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (factors for attenuation of consent following illegal seizure)
- New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 (1990) (consequences of unlawful entry and subsequent statements/evidence)
- United States v. Leon-Delfis, 203 F.3d 103 (1st Cir. 2000) (harmless‑error standard for constitutional trial errors)