United States v. Patrick Flores Oaxaca
233 F.3d 1154
9th Cir.
2000
Check Treatment
Docket

*1 (1) ions because: Prazak initially complied

with timing DelCostello’s requirements; UNITED America, STATES (2) DelCostello and West are hold- limited Plaintiff-Appellee, ings; and procedural state rules govern lawsuits in state court. Patrick OAXACA, Flores Defendant- application The procedural of state rules Appellant. to state court lawsuits paramount assumes No. 99-30062. importance in this case. Both of Prazak’s complaints originated in state court. United States Court of Appeals, Thus, procedural state rules should Ninth Circuit. applied been until the case was removed to federal court. appellees could have Argued July Submitted avoided the application of Alaska’s proce- Filed Nov. dural rules by immediately removing the case to federal court. As a matter, tactical

however, the appellees chose litigate

Prazak’s initial lawsuit in state court. The

appellees must live with that choice. application of state procedural rules

to this case does not undermine the Su-

preme holdings Court’s in DelCostello and

West or the application uniform of the six-

month statute limitations to hybrid

claims. If hybrid-claim defendants want

the benefit of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and with the assurance that the if

claim dismissed will refiled under procedural rule, state then they should

immediately all remove hybrid claims filed

in state court to federal court.

III. CONCLUSION

Thus, given that Prazak originally filed court, lawsuit in state that he initially

complied with DelCostello’s six-month stat- limitations,

ute of and that procedur- state

al applied rules while his lawsuit remained court, state we reverse the district

court’s summary judgment order for the

appellees.

REVERSED. *2 Medford, for Waliser, Oregon, M.

Vance defendant-appellant. Thomson, Assistant United Robert G. Attorney’s Attorney, United Medford, plaintiff- Office, Oregon, for appellee. GRABER, FERGUSON,

Before: FLETCHER, Judges. Circuit W. FERGUSON, Judge: Circuit (“Oaxaca”) ap- Flores Oaxaca Patrick con- and sentence peals his conviction methamphetamine, to distribute spiracy 841(a)(1), §§ U.S.C. violation 841(b)(l)(A)(viii), conclude and 846. We revers- court committed the district his motion it denied error when ible agents suppress with- in his arresting him after found a warrant.1 out BACKGROUND FACTUAL Drug Enforce- from arose This case (“DEA”) inves- Agency’s ment 1997, into March tigation, beginning methamphetamine the distribution Initially, Oregon. man named suspected lead- (“Fregoso”) Fregoso Frankie drug. to distribute conspiracy aof er conviction, appeal. we reverse 1. Because challenges raises he the other do not address attempt an to confirm suspicion, going on.” confronted her they bought methamphetamine from him with a backpack marijuana filled with several Dining times. some of these en- they had found in garage. Seeing the counters, Fregoso mentioned that his marijuana gave Nancy “a bad feeling” and Medford, sources lived Oregon, and in made her scared. She also felt pressured *3 Los Angeles, California, but he did not sign to the consent form when agents the offer any 4, 1997, names. On June the told her that if she sign, did not they agents arrested Fregoso and peo- various would secure the residence they ap- while ple who had accompanied during him the plied for a search warrant. sales the government to hope with the The agents several found incriminating they would identify source. items during their They search. seized The DEA agents turned their attention phones, numerous cellular a pager to only Oaxaca after Randy Newman displayed a number in sev- (“Newman”), one of the they people plastic eral bags containing methamphet- arrested on June pointed finger residue, amine Fregoso’s phone number at him as the conspiracy’s supplier. The on an envelope, scrawled a traffic citation day arrest, after his Newman dialed Oaxa- from Oregon, and Valenzuela’s personal ca’s phone number and buy offered one papers, all of which appeared to confirm pound of methamphetamine arranged story Newman’s that Oaxaca was not pick upit Fresno. On June dealer, but also the supplier of the Valenzuela, William (“Valenzuela”), Jr. conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine co-defendant, delivered metham- in Klamath Falls. phetamine to Newman and accompanying indicted for one count of agents in a park- McDonald’s conspiracy to distribute methamphet- ing lot. After arresting Valenzuela, the amine. 841(a)(1). § See 21 U.S.C. agents proceeded Before to Oaxaca’s house to ar- trial, he moved to suppress rest him as well. home, from his arguing that his arrest agents When the drove to Oaxaca’s violated the Fourth Amendment’s warrant him, house they to arrest did not have an requirement and Nancy’s tainted subse- arrest warrant. As soon as arrived, quent consent to search. The district they saw Oaxaca standing inside his at- court denied his motion to suppress, hold- tached garage. agents walked ing that because Oaxaca was exposed to through into the garage, and public view while standing inside his placed him under arrest. They then rage, agents were not required to ob- walked into other parts of the house hop- tain an arrest warrant and Nancy’s con- ing to family find a member who would sent was voluntary. consent to a search of Oaxaca’s bedroom. Ten minutes after arresting Oaxaca in- DISCUSSION side of his garage, agents persuaded sister, Nancy Oaxaca (“Nancy”), to A. to a search. During suppres- sion hearing, Nancy testified that she saw Oaxaca acknowledges probable driving up to family’s house cause him, existed to arrest but he con and immediately ran to garage. When tends that the evidence the there, she got she saw her brother on his found in his home was the fruit of an knees on the floor and three or four armed illegal arrest and that the district court agents wearing vests that identified them erred denying his motion to suppress it. as agents. DEA She that, testified “I The Supreme Court and our court have thought it was a thought raid. I it was—I made crystal that, clear in the absence of was freaking out. I didn’t know what exigent circumstances, police must ob- part much a is as put, a entering person’s warrant before tain of his home. the rest castle arrest him. person’s York, Newv. ar alternatively The Government (1980). Judge As a war not need did gues in United emphasized Fernandez had left his rant because Cir. Albrektsen, people him outside. exposed open, which omitted): (citation 1998) argument oral during pressed When far as went so point, the Government of the force protective Nowhere who desires that a to suggest powerful than amendment-more fourth must Amendment of the Fourth protection home is of the sanctity is when the windows shut. doors and keep his *4 person’s a sanctity of The involved. however, not, does Amendment Fourth real retreat home, perhaps our last resi hermetically sealed only protect very at the age, lies technological dences. the animate which rights core of the Therefore, have we been anyone who Indeed, amendment. that argument the that absent exi- invites in our demand implicitly adamant the street from is visible will only a warrant not his home circumstances to enter gent the Government in- sense, home is person’s a but flies before common required deeply offends Pay- In authorities. law. by the of well-established vaded the face 1371, 590, the ton, 100 at S.Ct. 445 U.S. that claim there does not The Government that Court invalidated Supreme justified that circumstances exigent were the indistinguishable from virtually entry into Oaxaca’s warrantless the here, There, police as the in this case. one rage. door, through an suspect the saw threshold, inside walked its crossed law, contrary clearly In face of 578, 100 him. Id. at room, arrested that asserts the Government holding that the arrest In 1371. S.Ct. an arrest war required not obtain were unconstitutional, emphasized, Court is garage attached rant because firma has drawn Fourth Amendment “the Court Supreme his home. part not of Absent the house. entrance of line at the Amend the Fourth long has extended may circumstances, that threshold exigent Taylor garages. protection ment’s a war- without reasonably be crossed 1, 6, States, 52 S.Ct. v. United 590,100 1371. S.Ct. Id. at rant.” that (holding 466, L.Ed. violat a warrant garage without same applied of Supreme search Court Amendment). Moreover, Harris, 495 U.S. v. the Fourth in New York ed principle argument 1640, rejected 109 L.Ed.2d we here, writing police “[n]o “evident” that (1990), deeming makes rule an attached distinguish had reason exists violated officers on his knocking the residence after the rest of Harris arresting from and fol- badges, United him their purposes.” showing Fourth Amendment (9th Court Frazin, home. The him inside his lowing 780 F.2d v. reasoned, drew a line Angeles “Payton Cir.1986); Police ... also Los see solici- Gates, special This 907 F.2d to the home. v. entrance League Protective entry physical necessary (9th Cir.1990); v. because tude United 884-85 Cir.1990). against which (9th evil is the the home chief Suarez, is Amendment the Fourth working of to distin no reason can conceive We (inter- 18, 110 time, Id. directed.” spend people where garage, a guish omitted); La- also see marks quotation nal possessions, from work, their and store Riverside, 204 F.3d County time, Londe kitchen, spend people where den or Cir.2000) (holding 947, 955 Simply work, possessions. and store Fourth Amendment was because violated where the who offers the consent place only arrest took “[t]he after the offi- prior action], “knew of the [illegal his con- cers the threshold crossed of the door may tainted, sent be considered and evi- apartment”). and entered LaLonde’s Be- dence found suppressed....” must be Furrow, cause the this case crossed 229 F.3d 2000 WL threshold of the door and entered Oaxaca’s at *7. placing him before under arrest There can be no doubt that Nan warrant, without a they violated the cy’s search was the fruit of the Fourth Amendment. Government’s warrantless and ar In urging arrest, us to uphold Oaxaca’s gave rest. She her consent mere moments the Government relies United States v. running after to the garage, where she saw Vaneaton, (9th Cir.1995), 49 F.3d 1423 but several armed DEA and her broth case, its misplaced. reliance knees, er on his already under arrest. As Supreme followed the Court’s decision in put she it during the suppression hearing, Santana, United States v. she “freaking out” because she 49 L.Ed.2d 300 per- thought that it Moreover, was a “raid.” mitting arrests at the doorway. spe- More where, here, the police confront per *5 cifically, upheld Vaneaton’s warrantless son with contraband that illegal arrest because the officers arrested him found, ly the subsequent consent to search standing “while outside his motel room.” is Taheri, fruit the Government action.

Id. at 1425-26. The in Government this 601; at Thomas, F.2d United case does not claim that the agents, DEA 955 F.2d at 211. Because the in consent Vaneaton, like the remained this case flowed from the Government’s outside of Oaxaca’s home to arrest him. action, illegal it is invalid. contrary, On the it acknowledges in its brief that “Defendant Oaxaca ... was ar- C. rested standing while in an open garage.” The trial court’s error admitting Thus, the doorway exception the war- to the evidence requires the reversal of Oaxa rant requirement simply does apply. not ca’s conviction. Determining the harm of an lessness error is distinct from evalu B. ating whether there is substantial evidence Having concluded that the to support a verdict. As we have ex into garage Oaxaca’s violated the Fourth plained: Anendment, we turn now to question There is a striking difference between of whether illegal tainted arrest appellate review to determine whether Nancy’s to search consent his bedroom. an error affected a judgment and the Athough the district court concluded that appellate usual to review determine her consent voluntary, was “[t]he mere whether there is substantial evidence to fact of voluntariness does not that a mean support judgment. Review for harm- consent is tainted a prior Fourth less error requires the most painstaking Anendment violation.” United States v. examination of the record and the most Furrow, 805, 1509977, 229 F.3d 2000 WL perceptive reflections probabil- to the * (9th 2000). Oct.12, at 6 Cir. ities of the effect of error on a reason- able trier of fact. by a defendant or a third Consent party is tainted where the evidence indi v. Whitley, Standen 994 F.2d cates that it stemmed prior Cir.1993) (internal from the illegal quotation marks * omitted). action. Id. 229 F.3d at By its own jurors admission to 7; see also Howard, trial, United States v. 828 at the Government’s case suffered (9th Cir.1987). example, For from the relying weakness of principally causing by knocking and entry to a house drug dealer and criminal longtime aon at opened. 445 U.S. door to be with cooperation whose 1371; v. Har also York fed- see New in a sentence life potential reduced ris, 495 U.S. months with fifty-seven to prison eral on the (police knocked That early release. L.Ed.2d an possibility followed Newman, opened, other it to be and causing whom three criminal home). aas characterized inside consistently the defendant witnesses to say anything do or would liar who here, contrast, willingly Oaxaca By , Moreover, prison. to back going avoid open. The door wide garage left Oaxaca, Fres- testimony Newman’s huge; is and small, its while rage supplier resident, conspiracy’s no range, close faces the street un- to comment Fregoso’s contradicted interior most of the exposed opening so his sources were dercover make facts view. These ready public to than Other and Medford. Angeles Los v. Santa- to case closer United Newman, tying na, to and Fregoso, permitted which straight from general came trade a home when the arrestee inside place take that Oaxaca prove To bedroom. door- in the standing was seen first the Government supplier, conspiracy’s And, if arrest of the home. way of find, up illegal its brought repeatedly lawful, rea- majority’s then the closing and opening it in its pointing to to his sis- refusing give effect son discrediting and confronting arguments, search, maj. op. ter’s it, eliciting with defense witnesses evaporates. high probability about the testimony *6 would such items possessed who a leaving aside those Second, and even record, we of the light In a dealer. be doubts, the motion any denying error admitting the error conclude room found Oaxaca’s evidence suppress was not at trial evidence illegally seized beyond a reasonable doubt. harmless We a reasonable doubt. beyond harmless California, 386 U.S. Chapman v. conviction. reverse Oaxaca’s therefore 705 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d REVERSED. error). for harmless (establishing standard “smoking were not items seized dissenting: GRABER, Judge, Circuit indeed, when com- and, trivial were gun” dissent. respectfully I guilt. of evidence his other with the pared that Oaxa- testified example, Newman For First, about the breadth have I doubts methamphetamine; for source concerning the ca holding majority’s of the deal- freely discussed under treatment of (for instance, presence ings in Newman’s example, For Amendment. the Fourth he drugs); quality of and Taylor v. United amounts majority relies on methamphet- of possession 76 L.Ed. saw States, U.S. Newman, Oaxa- Fregoso, and York, amine; that Payton New and on various of prices met to discuss ca the sale a deal drugs and made (1980). Those Maj. at 1157-59. op. that Oaxa- methamphetamine; and in an essential cocaine distinguishable cases are that New- drugs; and those delivered cases, not the ca police, those respect: In sales for several middleman man caused premises, occupants of methamphet- Fregoso from Oaxaca Taylor the In opened. doors much of majority makes locked, ga attached amine. to a obtained credibili- on Newman’s assaults testimonial forcing the lock. rage 1158-59, testimony but his ty, maj. op. obtained the officers 466. in many important was corroborated re-

spects by agents. For exam-

ple, they taped a call in which Oaxaca

agreed pound methamphet- to sell one Newman, portion

amine to of which in delivered,

fact corroborated

the dates of some of the sales about which

Newman testified. In view of that exten-

sive, corroborated including evidence— Oaxaca’s own taped agreement to sell a

pound of methamphetamine, some of which

then was delivered-—the admission of the

evidence seized from Oaxaca’s room cannot played significant role in jury’s

decision to convict him. foregoing reasons,

For the I do not be-

lieve that the required

retry Oaxaca without using

found in his I affirm room. would and,

conviction accordingly, dissent from majority’s contrary holding. RICHARDS-DIAZ,

Mario

Petitioner-Appellant, *7 FASANO,

Adele Director, J. District

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 99-56530.

United States Appeals, Court of

Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct.

Filed Nov.