UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. LUIS MIGUEL SIERRA-AYALA, Defendant, Appellant.
No. 20-1145
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
July 5, 2022
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Pedro A. Delgado-Hernandez, U.S. District Judge]
Before Barron, Chief Judge, Selya and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
Kevin E. Lerman, with whom Eric Alexander Vos, Federal Public Defender, and Franco L. Perez-Redondo, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Supervisor, Appeals Division, were on brief, for appellant.
Francisco A. Besosa-Martinez, with whom W. Stephen Muldrow, United States Attorney, and Mariana E. Bauza-Almonte, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate Division, were on brief, for appellee.
LIPEZ,
I.
A. Factual Background
We recite the “facts in the light most favorable to the district court‘s ruling” on Sierra-Ayala‘s motion to suppress, “noting where relevant [Sierra-Ayala]‘s contrary view of the testimony presented at the suppression hearing.” United States v. Rodriguez-Pacheco, 948 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2020) (first quoting United States v. Camacho, 661 F.3d 718, 723 (1st Cir. 2011); and then quoting United States v. Young, 835 F.3d 13, 15 (1st Cir. 2016)).
1. The January 29, 2017 Operation
On January 29, 2017, officers from the Puerto Rico Police Department (“PRPD“) deployed to a “known drug point” on Melilla Street in Loiza, Puerto Rico. The operational plan was to conduct surveillance and to act if the officers observed criminal activity. Melilla Street is a residential street, with houses on both sides. The drug point targeted by the PRPD operational plan was in a wooded area of Melilla Street, near a vacant lot.
At about 8:50 a.m., PRPD officers arrived at the drug point in six or seven vehicles. Two vehicles were marked with the PRPD emblem and the rest were unmarked. Sergeant Jesus Lopez-Maysonet was dressed in plainclothes and traveled with two fellow officers, Hector Garcia Nieves and Daniel Lopez Garcia, in an unmarked car. As he arrived at the drug point, the sergeant observed seven or eight individuals with messenger-style bags. He testified that, based on his training and experience, this type of bag is frequently used to carry drugs and weapons. Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet parked the car he was driving in a yard next to a house. The three officers then exited the vehicle and identified themselves as police officers by shouting “police.” All but one of the individuals fled into the adjacent wooded area. As Officers Garcia Nieves and Lopez Garcia chased the fleeing individuals, other officers were arriving at the site.
Sierra-Ayala was the man who did not flee; he remained sitting in a plastic chair as Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet approached. The sergeant testified that Sierra-Ayala was wearing a black messenger-style bag across his chest. At the initial suppression hearing before the magistrate judge, Lopez-Maysonet testified that after he identified himself to Sierra-Ayala as a police officer, Sierra-Ayala stood up, turned to the right, and showed him the contents of the bag. Sierra-Ayala testified differently. He claimed that he was concerned for his safety when Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet approached him, and that the sergeant directed him to turn over the bag, which he had been holding in his hands. Sierra-Ayala testified that he complied with Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet‘s request because
When the sergeant looked inside the bag, he saw “a transparent plastic bag” containing “purple packages that are used to pack heroin.” Upon seeing the packaging, he informed Sierra-Ayala that he was under arrest, directed him to stand up, and read him his Miranda rights. Because Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet did not have handcuffs on his person, he radioed for backup. After Sierra-Ayala was handcuffed, he patted him down and identified a gun in a holster on the left side of Sierra-Ayala‘s belt. Lopez-Maysonet also testified that he retrieved $94 in cash from Sierra-Ayala‘s pockets. Sierra-Ayala testified that only $10 belonged to him and that the remainder of the cash was recovered from the bag belonging to his cousin.
2. Sierra-Ayala‘s Involvement
Sierra-Ayala testified at the two suppression hearings about how he came to be at the drug point on Melilla Street on January 29, 2017. Because this testimony is relevant to Sierra-Ayala‘s motion to suppress, we summarize it here.
Sierra-Ayala grew up in a house on Melilla Street about five or six houses away from the site of his arrest. Although he now lives with his wife and two children in a different area of Loiza, Sierra-Ayala returned to his parents’ house on Melilla Street between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m. on January 29, 2017 to work on a Nissan Pathfinder that he was keeping and repairing there. On the morning of his arrest, Sierra-Ayala was waiting for his friend Jose Carlos, who was going to help him remove the radiator from the Pathfinder and take him to purchase a replacement.
At about 8:30 a.m., Sierra-Ayala stopped working on his car and went to buy a soda and cigarettes from his cousin, who sells refreshments from his grandmother‘s house. This house is across the street from Sierra-Ayala‘s parents’ house. Because the items Sierra-Ayala wished to purchase cost around $3 and his cousin did not have change for Sierra-Ayala‘s $10 bill, Sierra-Ayala went off in search of change. He walked toward a group of individuals further down Melilla Street — which included another one of Sierra-Ayala‘s cousins, Jean Carlos Sirino — and attempted to get change from Jean Carlos. While Jean Carlos searched for change, he passed the bag he was holding to Sierra-Ayala. Sierra-Ayala testified that the zipper of the bag was closed, and that he had been holding the bag for “[a]round five seconds” when the PRPD officers arrived. As discussed above, Sierra-Ayala testified that the officers’ arrival and Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet‘s approach and alleged order made him feel that he had no choice but to hand over the bag.
B. Procedural History
Sierra-Ayala pled not guilty to four charged offenses. He filed a motion to suppress the gun and drugs discovered by Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet, arguing that the sergeant lacked reasonable suspicion to support the initial seizure and that the discovery of contraband in the bag was coerced.1 Sierra-Ayala argued that his presence on Melilla Street was not unusual and that he was not engaged in any suspicious activity when the officers arrived in their vehicles. In response, the government argued that Sierra-Ayala was not
1. Initial Suppression Hearing Before the Magistrate Judge
The magistrate judge held a hearing on Sierra-Ayala‘s motion to suppress. Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet and Sierra-Ayala were the only witnesses, and they testified to the facts as outlined above. During cross-examination, the sergeant testified that he had forgotten to identify the holster seized from Sierra-Ayala in two separate reports filed after the arrest.
Prior to defense counsel‘s cross-examination of Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet, the government provided the court with information on four administrative complaints that had been filed against the sergeant. The magistrate judge determined that only one incident had the potential to be Giglio material,2 and permitted defense counsel to cross-examine Lopez-Maysonet about the incident. The following exchange occurred:
[Defense Counsel]: Sergeant [Lopez-]Maysonet, there was an administrative complaint against you as a result of a theft or loss of monies during a warrant — execution of a warrant. Is that correct?
[Lopez-Maysonet]: That‘s not right.
After Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet reviewed the administrative complaint, he explained:
[Lopez-Maysonet]: Like I was telling you, I was the supervisor and I did the writ for the Lieutenant [Daniel Lopez Garcia].
[Defense]: Is that administrative complaint as against you or is it as against someone else, the [complaint] in front of you?
[Lopez-Maysonet]: It‘s against Officer Daniel Lopez [Garcia].
[Defense]: It‘s not against you?
[Lopez-Maysonet]: No.
[Defense]: Does your name appear in that document?
[Lopez-Maysonet]: It only shows my last name, Lopez Maysonet.
. . .
[Defense]: What is the nature of the allegation?
[Lopez-Maysonet]: The nature of the allegation was that when I was supervising a search and arrest, the person that was subject of the warrant, Mr. Abner Arroyo, . . . gave me some money, I counted the money and then an amount of money went missing. We went to the video, we saw the video again and then there was some money missing when I was counting it and then Officer Lopez Garcia said that he had taken it as a joke in order for us to see what happens when someone else from outside gets involved.
Officer Lopez Garcia was involved in the operation that led to Sierra-Ayala‘s arrest. According to Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet, Officer Lopez Garcia “was in the vehicle but was not present at the arrest. He was in the wooded area while [Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet] was arresting” Sierra-Ayala.
At the end of the hearing, the magistrate judge directed the parties to file simultaneous supplemental briefs addressing whether Sierra-Ayala had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the bag.
In its supplemental brief, the government argued that Sierra-Ayala lacked standing to challenge a Fourth Amendment violation because he had no privacy interest in the bag.3 The government noted that Sierra-Ayala testified that his cousin had passed him the bag and that he had held it for only five to thirty seconds before the officers arrived. The government also argued that the court should credit Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet‘s hearing testimony rather than Sierra-Ayala‘s because Sierra-Ayala‘s narrative contained several implausibilities.
Sierra-Ayala‘s supplemental brief argued for the opposite conclusion. In particular, Sierra-Ayala argued that he had a possessory interest in the bag in the form of a bailment, giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet‘s testimony was incredible and embellished. Sierra-Ayala also reiterated his argument that the encounter with Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet was a seizure rather than a consensual encounter, and that Lopez-Maysonet lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop.
In a Report and Recommendation, the magistrate judge credited Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet‘s testimony about how the incident on January 29 unfolded. The magistrate judge described Lopez-Maysonet‘s demeanor and tone as convincing, and his version of the events as plausible and logical. The judge found Sierra-Ayala‘s testimony facially less plausible for several reasons. First, the magistrate judge expressed skepticism about the reported price of Sierra-Ayala‘s intended purchases and the lack of change for a relatively small bill in a home business selling inexpensive items. The judge also found the suggestion that Sierra-Ayala had only been holding the bag for five seconds before the PRPD officers arrived not credible. The magistrate judge credited Lopez-Maysonet‘s testimony that “he said nothing other than that he was a police officer. Sierra-Ayala then stood up and showed Lopez the contents of the shoulder bag without any other prompting.”
Finding that Sierra-Ayala voluntarily displayed the contents of the bag to Lopez-Maysonet, and that the officers’ show of force upon arriving to Melilla Street would not have caused a reasonable person to believe he was not free to leave, the magistrate judge recommended that the district court find that Sierra-Ayala was not seized. The Report and Recommendation also concluded that Sierra-Ayala lacked standing to challenge the search and seizure of the bag because he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the bag. The magistrate judge recommended that the court deny Sierra-Ayala‘s motion to suppress for both of these reasons.
Sierra-Ayala objected to the Report and Recommendation and requested a de novo hearing before the district court.4 Specifically, Sierra-Ayala objected to the magistrate judge‘s favorable assessment of Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet‘s credibility and to the magistrate judge‘s conclusions that no Fourth Amendment seizure occurred
3. De Novo Hearing Before the District Court
The district court scheduled a de novo hearing in response to Sierra-Ayala‘s objection to the Report and Recommendation. The government subsequently filed a motion to vacate the de novo hearing, which the district court denied. The government then filed a motion to limit the scope of the de novo hearing to the question of standing, arguing that it presented a threshold issue because “the legality of the seizure is not properly before the Court” until Sierra-Ayala establishes standing. The district court granted that motion two days later, without waiting for a response from Sierra-Ayala.
At the de novo hearing, Sierra-Ayala and Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet reiterated much of their testimony from the initial suppression hearing before the magistrate judge. Sierra-Ayala testified that when his cousin handed him the bag, it was his understanding that he “w[as] to hold th[e] bag until [Jean Carlos] got change for [Sierra-Ayala],” he was “responsible for th[e] bag,” and it was his understanding that he “could not give it to anyone else.” Sierra-Ayala explained that he “turned [the bag] over to the police[] because [Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet] told [him] to turn it over.” Sierra-Ayala also testified that he was at the site for only about five seconds before police arrived, and that his cousin had never asked him to watch anything in the past. He explained that the site of his arrest was “[f]our or five houses” away from his mother‘s house. Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet reiterated his prior testimony that Sierra-Ayala had displayed the contents of the bag to him voluntarily.
After the de novo hearing, the district court subsequently issued an opinion and order “adopt[ing] the R&R‘s recommendation as it relates to the issue of standing, and den[ying] Sierra-Ayala‘s motion on such basis.” The court assumed, “[f]or purposes of this Opinion and Order, . . . that the interaction between Sierra-Ayala and Sergeant Lopez[-Maysonet] occurred the way Sierra-Ayala described it.” In other words, the court assumed that Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet ordered Sierra-Ayala to display the contents of the bag to him, but nevertheless concluded that Sierra-Ayala lacked standing to challenge the search.5
In finding that Sierra-Ayala lacked standing, the district court concluded that Sierra-Ayala was authorized to possess the bag but that the evidence was insufficient to support a depositor-depository relationship between Sierra-Ayala and his cousin.6 Moreover, even if such a relationship existed, the court concluded that a bailment was not necessarily sufficient to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy. Instead, the court found that Sierra-Ayala “undertook no affirmative precautions to maintain privacy” even though the court assumed, for purposes of the order, that Sierra-Ayala‘s version of the events was accurate.7
The court observed that
4. The District Court‘s Supplemental Order
After the district court issued its order adopting the Report and Recommendation with respect to Sierra-Ayala‘s standing to challenge the search of the bag, defense counsel sought a supplemental order on Sierra-Ayala‘s standing to suppress the gun, which Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet testified to finding on Sierra-Ayala‘s person. The court allowed the parties to address the issue at a pre-trial status conference. At the conference, defense counsel argued that Sierra-Ayala‘s lack of standing to suppress the contents of the bag was irrelevant to whether he had standing to challenge the discovery of the gun on his person. Defense counsel also argued that, even if the court credited Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet‘s version of the events, Sierra-Ayala‘s display of the bag could not be voluntary under the fruit-of-the-poisonous- tree doctrine because Sierra-Ayala was illegally seized when Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet approached.
During the status conference, the district court indicated on multiple occasions that it was crediting Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet‘s testimony, rather than Sierra-Ayala‘s, about how the encounter unfolded.8 After the status conference, the district court issued a supplemental order, which summarized the factual findings the district court had adopted at the status conference:
[T]he defendant was with a group of individuals who ran away when police officers arrived in the area. The defendant, however, stayed in place. One of the officers (Sergeant Lopez [-Maysonet]) approached the defendant, identifying himself as a police officer. The defendant held open and showed the contents of the bag to the officer, who saw a clear plastic bag that had purple packages in it, which the officer knew was the type of packaging used for heroin. The officer placed the defendant under arrest and frisked him, finding the gun.9
The court rejected Sierra-Ayala‘s argument that he was seized at the time Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet approached, and concluded that, because Sierra-Ayala voluntarily displayed the contents of the bag, the sergeant had probable cause to arrest him. The court concluded that the discovery of the gun on Sierra-Ayala‘s person was therefore a permissible consequence of a constitutional search incident to arrest.
5. Trial
At the start of the trial, the government sought to preclude the defense from questioning Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet about the 2015 incident in which he failed to file a timely report about the misconduct of his supervisee, Officer Daniel Lopez Garcia. The government argued that the incident was not relevant under Giglio. Defense counsel countered that the incident was
The district court ruled that defense counsel could not cross-examine Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet about the incident, noting that “[Lopez-Maysonet] submitted the report. He did it late. That‘s not . . . [Rule] 608 material.” The court also precluded defense counsel from introducing Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet‘s testimony at the initial suppression hearing as a prior inconsistent statement. The court explained that whether Lopez-Maysonet was “under investigation at the time of the arrest of Mr. Sierra-Ayala” was “not what was asked of [Lopez-Maysonet] . . . . Defense counsel was very specific, and they were referring to a complaint as a result of a theft or loss of monies during [the] execution of a warrant.”
The trial commenced after the resolution of these threshold issues. Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet reiterated his prior testimony that Sierra-Ayala voluntarily displayed the contents of the bag to him. Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet also testified to recovering the holster from Sierra-Ayala‘s person but acknowledged that he failed to document it in the investigatory report filed after the incident. The jury convicted Sierra-Ayala of the four charged offenses.10 He was sentenced to a term of seventy-two months of imprisonment. This appeal followed.
C. Claims on Appeal
Appellant seeks review of the district court‘s denial of his motion to suppress the drugs and firearm. He argues that the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine applies to the evidence seized during his encounter with Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet because the encounter was an unconstitutional seizure. The government responds that Sierra-Ayala was not seized when Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet approached and that he voluntarily displayed the contents of the bag to the sergeant. Alternatively, the government suggests that the interactions between Sierra-Ayala and Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet constitute a constitutionally permissible investigatory stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Moreover, even if the initial stop of Sierra-Ayala was unconstitutional, the government contends that the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine does not apply to the items seized because their discovery comported with Fourth Amendment principles.
Appellant also appeals the district court‘s decision, during his trial, to preclude cross-examination of Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet on certain issues relating to the administrative complaint in which Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet was named. Appellant suggests that cross-examination on this issue is relevant to truthfulness — i.e., Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet‘s “dishonest[]” conduct in belatedly filing a report about the incident — and bias — i.e., that Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet had an incentive to testify favorably for the government because he was under investigation. Appellant contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying cross-examination and that his inability to adequately impeach Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet‘s bias and truthfulness caused his trial to be fundamentally unfair.
We address appellant‘s suppression arguments first.
A. Standard of Review
We review the district court‘s factual findings at the suppression hearing for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Rodriguez-Pacheco, 948 F.3d at 6. We are “especially deferential” to the district court‘s evaluation of witnesses’ credibility, which we will overturn “only if, after reviewing all of the evidence, we have a ‘definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.‘” United States v. Jones, 187 F.3d 210, 214 (1st Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Rostoff, 164 F.3d 63, 71 (1st Cir. 1999)). “Indeed, absent objective evidence that contradicts a witness‘s story or a situation where the story itself is so internally inconsistent or implausible that no reasonable factfinder would credit it, ‘the ball game is virtually over’ once a district court determines that a key witness is credible.” United States v. Guzman-Batista, 783 F.3d 930, 937 (1st Cir. 2015) (citation omitted) (quoting Rivera-Gomez v. de Castro, 900 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1990)).
B. The Seizure
The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Here, appellant was clearly seized when Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet approached him at the site on Melilla Street. Immediately preceding Sergeant Lopez-Maysonet‘s approach, an unmarked vehicle had pulled up in a yard beside a house. Three officers exited the vehicle, yelling “police.” The officers chased after six or seven fleeing individuals — individuals who had not been observed engaging in criminal activity prior to the officers’ pursuit. Additional police officers and vehicles arrived at the site as the two pursuing officers ran into the woods. A reasonable person, observing this show of police authority, would not feel free to leave. The heavy police presence and rapidity with which officers pursued the fleeing individuals “objectively communicate[d] that
[law enforcement] [wa]s exercising [its] official authority to restrain the individual[s‘] liberty of movement.” United States v. Fields, 823 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir. 2016) (second and fourth alterations in original) (emphasis omitted) (quoting United States v. Cardoza, 129 F.3d 6, 16 (1st Cir. 1997)).
Even where an encounter with law enforcement rises to the level of a seizure, however, the Supreme Court has recognized certain exceptions to the protections of the
Critically, “the individual facts, taken in the aggregate,” must be “sufficient to trigger a reasonable suspicion that some criminal activity was afoot — and that the defendant was involved.” United States v. Ruidíaz, 529 F.3d 25, 30 (1st Cir. 2008) (emphasis added).
In arguing that Sergeant López-Maysonet possessed reasonable suspicion to justify a Terry stop of Sierra-Ayala, the government points to three facts: (1) the location of the stop, which Sergeant López-Maysonet described as a “known drug point” based on his training and experience; (2) the fact that several individuals were carrying messenger-style bags, which Sergeant López-Maysonet testified were “used to carry controlled substances and weapons“; and (3) the flight of several individuals upon the arrival of police.
The location of a stop in a “high crime area” may be one factor relevant to the Terry analysis. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000); United States v. Wright, 485 F.3d 45, 54 (1st Cir. 2007). But the Supreme Court has made clear that “[a]n individual‘s presence in an area of expected criminal activity, standing alone, is not enough to support a reasonable, particularized suspicion that the person is committing a crime.” Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 124 (emphasis added). Although “unprovoked flight” or “nervous, evasive behavior” may provide reasonable suspicion justifying an investigatory stop, id. at 124; see also United States v. Aitoro, 446 F.3d 246, 252 (1st Cir. 2006), Sierra-Ayala — unlike the other individuals present — neither fled nor acted evasively as Sergeant López-Maysonet approached, see Camacho, 661 F.3d at 726. Nor is Sierra-Ayala‘s possession of a black messenger-style bag enough to tip the scale toward reasonable suspicion. Even if messenger-style bags are commonly used in drug transactions, as Sergeant López-Maysonet testified, they are also useful for any number of legitimate purposes. Sergeant López-Maysonet did not observe individuals using the bags in a way that a “reasonably prudent and experienced police officer would have recognized . . . as consistent with the consummation of a drug deal.” United States v. Rabbia, 699 F.3d 85, 90 (1st Cir. 2012).
The totality of the circumstances here does not provide an “objectively reasonable, particularized basis for suspecting [Sierra-Ayala] of criminal activity.” Camacho, 661 F.3d at 726 (emphasis added); see also United States v. Wright, 582 F.3d 199, 220 (1st Cir. 2009) (Lipez, J., dissenting) (“[T]he reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop must be more than an ‘inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or “hunch,“’ and it must be specifically focused on the individual under scrutiny.” (citation omitted) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 27)). The most that can be said is that Sierra-Ayala was standing near a known drug point — close to his parents’ home — while holding a bag that can be used to transport drugs, weapons, gym
C. The Search and Arrest
Our conclusion that Sergeant López-Maysonet lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the initial seizure of Sierra-Ayala does not end the inquiry. The government argues that an intervening voluntary act — Sierra-Ayala‘s display of the contents of the bag to Sergeant López-Maysonet — provided independent probable cause to arrest Sierra-Ayala, rendering any lack of reasonable suspicion prior to the voluntary act irrelevant to suppression.11
Appellant offers two arguments in response. First, appellant contends that the district court clearly erred in concluding that he spontaneously and voluntarily displayed the contents of the bag to Sergeant López-Maysonet, thereby obviating the need for probable cause for a search. Second, appellant argues that even if the district court properly concluded that he acted “voluntarily,” suppression of the drugs and the firearm is nevertheless appropriate under the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine. We consider these arguments in turn.
1. A Voluntary Act
At the suppression hearings, the parties presented opposing testimony on the issue of voluntariness. Sierra-Ayala testified that Sergeant López-Maysonet observed the contents of the bag only because he ordered Sierra-Ayala to turn the bag over. Sierra-Ayala argued then, and argues again on appeal, that Sergeant López-Maysonet‘s coercive inspection of the bag was a search within the meaning of the
Where the government defends the validity of a search based on an individual‘s consent, the government “has the burden of proving that the necessary consent was obtained and that it was freely and voluntarily given, a burden that is not satisfied by showing a mere submission to a claim of lawful authority.” Royer, 460 U.S. at 497. Sergeant López-Maysonet
Although appellant offers several arguments for why the lower court‘s credibility assessment of the competing testimony on voluntariness was wrong,13 he does not identify “objective evidence that contradicts [Sergeant López-Maysonet‘s] story.” Guzmán-Batista, 783 F.3d at 937. Nor was Sergeant López-Maysonet‘s testimony “so internally inconsistent or implausible that no reasonable factfinder would credit it.” Id. Because appellant‘s evidentiary arguments do not leave us with a “definite and firm conviction” that the district court erred in crediting Sergeant López-Maysonet‘s testimony, Jones, 187 F.3d at 214 (quoting Rostoff, 164 F.3d at 71), the district court did not clearly err in concluding that Sierra-Ayala displayed the drugs to Sergeant López-Maysonet without prompting from the sergeant. See United States v. Casellas-Toro, 807 F.3d 380, 390 (1st Cir. 2015) (noting that the voluntariness of a consent search is a factual determination for the district court); accord United States v. Coraine, 198 F.3d 306, 308 (1st Cir. 1999). Upon observing the drugs in the bag due to this voluntary act, Sergeant López-Maysonet acquired probable cause to arrest Sierra-Ayala and to conduct a search of him incident to arrest.
Ordinarily, this conclusion would end our inquiry and warrant affirmance of the district court‘s order denying Sierra-Ayala‘s motion to suppress. But because appellant also argues that his “voluntary” act is inextricably linked to the initial unconstitutional seizure that precipitated his display of the bag, we next address whether suppression is warranted under the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine.
2. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
The fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine is an extension of the
(quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 609 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring)).
In the context of a “voluntary” confession after an illegal arrest, to which appellant analogizes his situation, courts examine “[t]he temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession, the presence of intervening circumstances, and, particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct” to determine whether suppression of the statements is warranted under the fruit-of-the-poisonous tree doctrine. Brown, 422 U.S. at 603-04 (citations and footnote omitted). And, of closer relevance to the situation here, we have held that the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine may be implicated where an individual‘s “voluntary” consent to a search of his belongings followed an initial
Applying these principles, we conclude that the circumstances of this case do not warrant suppression of the evidence recovered from Sierra-Ayala as fruits of the poisonous tree. To start, we recognize that this case differs from the consented-to search at issue in Navedo-Colón, where the district court assumed without deciding that the initial alleged illegality (an illegal x-ray) was unlawful. 996 F.2d at 1338. Here, in contrast, the district court concluded that Sierra-Ayala was not seized, and thus it did not consider the
Even assuming a causal connection between the voluntary display of the bag and the initial illegal seizure effected by the arriving officers’ show of authority due to their temporal proximity, the facts found by the district court do not support the conclusion that “the causal link . . . is so tight that the evidence acquired pursuant to that [voluntary act] must be suppressed.” Delgado-Pérez, 867 F.3d at 257 (quoting Cordero-Rosario, 786 F.3d at 76); see also United States v. Serrano-Acevedo, 892 F.3d 454, 460 (1st Cir. 2018) (indicating that suppression is not warranted where the causal link between an initial illegality and subsequent consent is “sufficiently attenuated“). Nothing about the behavior of the officers at the scene generally, or Sergeant López-Maysonet‘s particular actions towards Sierra-Ayala, can be read as “exploit[ing]” the primary illegality, Cordero-Rosario, 786 F.3d at 78, to induce Sierra-Ayala to display the contents of the bag. See United States v. Smith, 919 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2019) (“‘[T]he purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct’ . . . ‘is the most important part of the analysis “because it is tied directly to the rationale underlying the exclusionary rule, deterrence of police misconduct.“‘” (first quoting Cordero-Rosario, 786 F.3d at 76; and then quoting United States v. Stark, 499 F.3d 72, 77 (1st Cir. 2007)))).
According to Sergeant López-Maysonet‘s testimony, which the district court credited, Officers Lopez Garcia and Garcia Nieves, upon arriving at the site, exiting their vehicle, and announcing themselves as law enforcement, chased several individuals into the woods as other officers arrived. Sergeant López-Maysonet “was behind Officer [Garcia Nieves] when [he] noticed an individual that remained sitting down on a plastic chair, so [Sergeant López-Maysonet] turned and . . . identified [him]self as a police officer and the individual stood up facing [him], . . . turned to the right and . . . opened [the bag he was holding] and showed [López-Maysonet] the contents.” To be sure, the officers’ cumulative show of force as they pursued the fleeing individuals contributed to the seizure of Sierra-Ayala. But chasing other fleeing individuals cannot be interpreted as exploiting the illegal seizure to induce the seized individual to surrender evidence. Cf. Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 124 (unprovoked flight may provide reasonable suspicion to investigate fleeing individuals). Nor was turning towards Sierra-Ayala and identifying himself as a police officer while the other officers pursued those in flight flagrant misconduct by Sergeant López-Maysonet. See Smith, 919 F.3d at 12 (distinguishing the “professional and polite” interactions at issue from the “extreme tactics the Supreme Court [has] deemed coercive“).
Any number of scenarios could have followed Sergeant López-Maysonet‘s identification of himself as law enforcement, including an order from the sergeant to
III.
We now turn to appellant‘s appeal of the limitations the district court imposed on the cross-examination of Sergeant López-Maysonet.
A. Standard of Review
The Confrontation Clause of the
B. Discussion
Appellant does not contend that he was denied a reasonable opportunity to impeach Sergeant López-Maysonet. Instead, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by preventing defense counsel from questioning Sergeant López-Maysonet about the disciplinary incident involving Officer López García, and about Sergeant López-Maysonet‘s testimony about the incident at the suppression hearing. Because appellant objects to a restriction on the manner or scope of cross-examination, our review begins at the second stage of the Confrontation Clause inquiry and we review the restrictions imposed by the court for abuse of discretion. Appellant must show that the limitations on cross-examination were
Under
See United States v. Fortes, 619 F.2d 108, 118 (1st Cir. 1980) (“The court need not permit unending excursions into each and every matter touching upon veracity if a reasonably complete picture has already been developed.“). Because appellant has not established that the limits on cross-examination were clearly prejudicial, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Affirmed.