United States v. Soza
686 F. App'x 564
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- In June 2014 three women at a gated Albuquerque condominium reported a man banging on their door and throwing a rock through a sliding glass door; one called 911 and described a "Spanish male in his forties" wearing a grey shirt and baseball cap.
- Officers Melvin and Demsich investigated, encountered Bradley Soza (an adult Hispanic male wearing a grey sweatshirt and baseball cap) near the complex, and instructed him to return to a building; he complied.
- Later the officers found Soza on a front porch, unholstered their firearms, ordered him to put his hands on his head, and then began to handcuff him; Soza was calm and compliant throughout.
- While moving his hands to cuff him officers observed blood on his hands and glass on his neck and sweatshirt; Soza then said he had broken the sliding glass door because he "heard something." Subsequent searches revealed a flashlight, syringe, knife, and a loaded firearm.
- A grand jury charged Soza, a convicted felon, with unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition; Soza moved to suppress the evidence and statements, the district court denied suppression, and Soza entered a conditional guilty plea reserving appeal.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo and reversed the denial of the suppression motion solely on the ground that officers converted a lawful investigatory stop into an arrest without probable cause by handcuffing and using firearms before probable cause existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Soza) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers unlawfully seized Soza by stepping onto his front porch (curtilage) without consent, warrant, or probable cause | Stepping onto the porch to seize him violated Fourth Amendment protection of curtilage | Officers had authority to approach and investigate given proximity to the burglary report and common-access area | Not addressed—court reversed on other ground and declined to decide this issue |
| Whether officers transformed a Terry stop into an arrest (thus requiring probable cause) by brandishing firearms and handcuffing Soza before probable cause existed | Use of firearms and immediate handcuffing converted the stop into an arrest; evidence obtained thereafter must be suppressed | Even if only reasonable suspicion existed, firearms and handcuffs were reasonably necessary precautions given a potentially violent burglary suspect | Reversed: handcuffing (and firearms use) before probable cause was unlawful; evidence obtained after that point suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013) (curtilage and home-protected area principles)
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984) (definition of curtilage and Fourth Amendment protections)
- Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970) (specific suspect description can support probable cause)
- United States v. Miller, 532 F.2d 1335 (10th Cir. 1976) (detailed description/license plate can establish probable cause)
- United States v. Melendez-Garcia, 28 F.3d 1046 (10th Cir. 1994) (use of force in Terry stops does not always convert to arrest)
- Maresca v. Bernalillo Cnty., 804 F.3d 1301 (10th Cir. 2015) (forceful techniques during investigatory stops can constitute an arrest when suspect is calm and unarmed)