United States v. Valenzuela-Espinoza
697 F.3d 742
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Valenzuela-Espinoza was arrested March 5, 2008 in Tucson after a knock-and-talk led to discovery of marijuana at a house.
- Nine officers and a narcotics dog participated; agents secured the scene while awaiting a search warrant.
- Valenzuela-Espinoza admitted illegal status and presence of marijuana; he was detained while a warrant was sought (issued 3:25 p.m.).
- He was questioned without Miranda warnings at around 7:32–7:50 p.m.; a Spanish-language waiver was offered but refused.
- Valenzuela-Espinoza was brought to a magistrate on March 6, 2008, at 2:00 p.m.; charges included conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
- District court denied suppression of statements; magistrate recommended suppression under McNabb-Mallory; the case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-arraignment delay violated McNabb-Mallory and §3501(c). | Delay was unreasonable and not within six hours. | Delay could be reasonable given scene security and warrant process. | Delay unreasonable; statements suppressed; convictions vacated. |
| Whether the 10:30 a.m. paperwork policy rendered delay reasonable. | Policy justified delaying presentment. | Policy was proper administrative practice. | Policy cannot render delay reasonable; not controlling; delay still unreasonable. |
| Whether there were other reasonable delays under McNabb-Mallory categories. | Delays for humanitarian reasons or government unavailability justify delay. | Delays were due to other duties and warrant preparation. | No substantial humanitarian or unavailability basis; third category not satisfied. |
| Whether statements at the ICE office should be suppressed. | Statements should be excluded due to McNabb-Mallory violation. | Six-hour safe harbor under §3501(c) may apply. | Statements suppressed; McNabb-Mallory violation established. |
| Whether Miranda waiver invocation affected admissibility. | Valenzuela-Espinoza invoked his rights when refusing to sign. | Invocation of rights was not adequately asserted. | Addressed through suppression ruling; conviction vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1943) (discusses requirement of prompt presentment to avoid coerced statements)
- Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (U.S. 1957) (extends McNabb protection to pre-arraignment statements)
- Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (U.S. 2009) (two-part test for pre-presentment delays; six-hour framework with reasonableness inquiry)
- United States v. Liera, 585 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2009) (discusses McNabb-Mallory framework and reasonableness of delay)
- United States v. Garcia-Hernandez, 569 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2009) (delay categories including humanitarian and unavailability of personnel)
- United States v. Gamez, 301 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2002) (delay due to unavailability of Spanish-speaking agents)
- Corley v. United States, quoted, 129 S. Ct. 1558 (2009) (continues Corley framework on presentment timing)