Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01150/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01150-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Julian Roger Sanchez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United Stat.es Court of .Appeals 

Tenth circuit 

JUN 11 1990 v 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

JULIAN ROGER SANCHEZ, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

No. 89-1150 

(D.C. No. 88-CR-299) 

(District of Colorado) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT1 

Befor2 McKAY and MOORE Circuit Judges, and DUMBAULD, District 

Judge 

This is a direct appeal whereby the defendant claims that the 

trial court erred in holding that no standing existed to assert 

fourth amendment claims and that there were exigent circumstances 

in a warrantless entry. The defendant also requests a new trial 

claiming he was prejudiced in the joint trial. 

I. FACTS 

Acting upon an informant's tip, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents and Adams County Sheriff's Department officers 

1 This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

2 Honorable Edward Dumbauld, United .States District Judge for 

the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-1150 Document: 010110036166 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 1 
instituted surveillance of a gas station located at 5539 N. 

Washington Street., "" -Adains County,7', Golo:rado. The;y. observed the 

defendant, Mr. Sanchez, entering and exiting the gas station, 

often carrying a green camouflage duffle bag. On several occasions the defendant entered the El Capiro bar located near the gas 

station. Defendant was observed leaving the bar with unidentified 

persons and meeting with those persons inside a white Lincoln 

Continental vehicle where defendant had placed the duffle bag. 

On one occasion the defendant removed the camouflage duffle 

bag from the white Lincoln Continental and carried the bag into a 

blue vehicle. The driver of the blue vehicle, Mr. Chessar, and 

the defendant were then observed in what was suspected to be a 

marijuana transaction. The defendant returned to his white Lincoln Continental with the camouflage duffle bag before entering 

the bar. The driver of the blue vehicle pulled out of the parking 

lot and traveled north on Washington Street. The blue vehicle was 

subsequently stopped by an FBI agent who arrested Mr. Chessar upon 

observing a plastic bag containing marijuana lying on the floor 

board near the passenger seat. 

After the arrest of the driver of the blue vehicle, the defendant was stopped for questioning. The green camouflage duffle 

bag was observed on the front seat of his vehicle and the defendant was placed under arrest. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1150 Document: 010110036166 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 2 
The agents and officers then returned to the gas station . 

. one .. of the~ FBI .agents ,knocked on ,the ,.f.ront -·pedestrian door of the 

station and Mr. Moralez (Case No. 89-1154) walked up to the door. 

After the agent identified himself, Mr. Moralez ran to the back of 

the station. Other agents observed two persons inside the station, later identified as Mr. Alamillo (Case No. 89-1141) and Mr. 

Pinelli, attempting to flee through the back door. After observing this attempt to flee, the agents kicked in a door and arrested 

Mr. Moralez and Mr. Pinelli. The agents then searched the gas 

station to find the third individual previously seen in the building. While the agents searched for the third individual, they 

observed and smelled marijuana throughout the premises. Mr. 

Alamillo was eventually located hiding in an upstairs attic and 

was arrested. After the arrests of Messrs. Moralez, Alamillo and 

Pinelli, the agents cleared the premises and waited for a federal 

search warrant. 

Co-defendants Mr. Sanchez, Mr. Alamillo and Mr. Moralez were 

indicted for conspiracy to possess, and possession with the intent 

to distribute, marijuana. Defendants were found guilty of all 

charges by jury verdict. 

II. STANDING 

While the trial court concluded that defendant had no standing to assert fourth amendment rights in order to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the initial warrantless entry, we 

are persuaded otherwise. · The -defendant argues--and the record 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-1150 Document: 010110036166 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 3 
reflects--that he had keys to the premises, that he locked the 

.. doors an~l -.-gat,es., that. , he .. _-kept. his-- personal belo_ngings there and 

had unrestricted access to the entire building. In United States 

v. Wright, 826 F.2d 938, 944 (10th Cir. 1987), we held that relevant considerations for standing to contest a search on fourth 

amendment grounds included whether the party had a right to control or exclude others from using the property or the premises. 

We hold that this defendant demonstrated the personal relationship 

to the property necessary to enforce his fourth amendment rights. 

The trial court's holding that the defendant did not have standing 

is REVERSED. 

III. EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES 

The trial court found that exigent circumstances existed during the initial warrantless entry which made the challenged search 

reasonable. Order, March 22, 1989, at 10-15. We have previously 

set forth the four prerequisites for finding a warrantless search 

reasonable when police believe evidence may be destroyed. 

An exception to the warrant requirement that allows police 

fearing the destruction of evidence to enter the home of an 

unknown suspect should be (1) pursuant to clear evidence of 

probable cause, (2) available only for serious crimes and in 

circumstances where the destruction of the evidence is likely, (3) limited in scope to the minimum intrusion necessary 

to prevent the destruction of evidence, and (4) supported by 

clearly defined indicators of exigency that are not subject 

to police manipulation or abuse. 

United States v. Aquino, 836 F.2d 1268, 1272 (10th Cir. 1988). 

The district court found that the government fulfilled each of 

these requirements. Order, March 22, 1989, at 11. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-1150 Document: 010110036166 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 4 
•' 

The defendant argues that the government had ample time to 

, __ . ••r tel-ephonic-ally··secur.e a warrant.· .··The .. distr ict .court :,found that 

the "exigency arose upon the arrest of Sanchez and was confirmed 

by [the agents'] observation of three persons reacting to the 

appearance of the officers and that the nature of the circumstances confronting the officers at that time clearly prevented 

the effectiveness of the warrant procedures available." Id. at 

12. The agents saw Mr. Sanchez going in and out of the gas station and they observed him making transactions in the parking lot. 

They were also aware that there were other people inside the gas 

station. After Mr. Sanchez was arrested, the agents were entitled 

to assume that his absence would be noticed by those who were 

inside the station. Under this combination of events the officers 

were justified in determining that destruction of evidence was 

probable. The trial court was not clearly erroneous in concluding 

that exigent circumstances existed in these fluid circumstances. 

The trial court's order that exigent circumstances existed is 

AFFIRMED. 

III. SEVERANCE 

The defendant did not file a motion for severance of the 

joint trial. 3 Defendant now claims that the trial court erred in 

failing to sever the trials because defendant was prejudiced in 

the joint trial. We have previously held the failure to seek severance in the trial court results in waiver of the issue unless it 

3 Mr. Alamillo did file a motion for severance. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-1150 Document: 010110036166 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 5 
,-' 

can be shown that actual prejudice resulted from the joint trial. 

"Uni ted -States v. _.Killip,- 819 F-.-2d 1542, 1547 ( 10th Cir. 1987). 

Our review of the record supports our holding that the defendant 

has not shown actual prejudice. Therefore, defendant's request 

for a new trial is DENIED. 

The trial court's holding that defendant lacked standing is 

REVERSED. The court's denial of the suppression motion and failure to sua sponte grant severance are AFFIRMED. The denial of the 

motion for a new trial is AFFIRMED. 

-6-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-1150 Document: 010110036166 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 6