United States v. Villanueva
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7880
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Lawton, Oklahoma residence (owned by defendant’s stepfather) was subject of a no‑knock search warrant after a narcotics investigation into an alleged methamphetamine distribution conspiracy led by Florentino Villanueva Jr.
- OBNDD affidavit relied on wiretapped calls, phone ping/location data, surveillance, and agent training to connect Villanueva and associates to drug transactions and to place co‑conspirators at the residence.
- A state judge (Aycock) issued the warrant; agents executed it and seized, inter alia, a loaded firearm from the master bedroom.
- Villanueva moved to suppress arguing the issuing judge was not neutral and detached, the affidavit lacked probable cause (no nexus and stale), the warrant was overbroad, and execution was improper; district court denied suppression and applied Leon good‑faith as an alternative ground.
- Villanueva pleaded guilty conditionally, reserved right to appeal suppression denial and ACCA enhancement; district court applied ACCA, overruled objections, and sentenced him to 210 months.
Issues
| Issue | Villanueva's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the issuing judge a neutral and detached magistrate? | Judge previously prosecuted or showed bias toward Villanueva and recused in related matters, so not neutral. | No outward signs of bias; nothing in affidavit would have alerted officers; Leon permits good‑faith reliance absent magistrate abandonment. | Court did not decide neutrality; applied Leon and held officers’ reliance was objectively reasonable. |
| Did the affidavit establish probable cause / nexus / avoid staleness concerns? | Affidavit only showed suspicion, weak nexus to the residence, and relied on events up to three months old (stale). | Wiretaps, ping data, surveillance, and agent expertise provided a minimal nexus and recent enough evidence for ongoing drug activity. | Affidavit met the minimal nexus; information was not so stale as to render reliance unreasonable. |
| Did the warrant fail particularity / authorize a general search or was it executed improperly? | Attachment B was overbroad and allowed general rummaging; execution exceeded scope. | Descriptions were as specific as the investigation permitted for drug‑trafficking evidence; inventory shows seized items fit warrant. | Particularity requirement satisfied for a drug investigation; no evidence warrant was improperly executed. |
| Was ACCA enhancement improper (Sixth Amendment and predicate offense)? | ACCA enhancement violated Sixth Amendment because prior convictions were not jury‑found beyond reasonable doubt; one prior marijuana distribution conviction is not a "serious drug offense." | Precedent allows judges to find prior convictions by preponderance; Oklahoma law prescribes a 10+ year maximum for marijuana distribution, satisfying ACCA’s definition. | Sixth Amendment argument foreclosed by Almendarez‑Torres; prior Oklahoma conviction qualifies as a serious drug offense under ACCA. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Lo‑Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319 (magistrate abandons role when joins police search)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality‑of‑the‑circumstances test for probable cause)
- United States v. Roach, 582 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. — Leon saved otherwise weak residence nexus where some investigative link existed)
- United States v. Campbell, 603 F.3d 1218 (10th Cir. — good‑faith reliance upheld despite staleness concerns for ongoing drug activity)
- United States v. Mathis, 357 F.3d 1200 (10th Cir. — staleness depends on nature and continuity of criminal activity)
- McNeill v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2218 (statutory‑maximum focus in defining ACCA predicate offenses)