Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01141/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01141-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Felipe Alamillo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

( FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH -CIRCUIT 

Unit.ed Stat.es Court of Appeals 

Tenth circuit 

JUN 111990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

FELIPE ALAMILLO, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-1141 

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

(District of Colorado) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT1 

Befor2 McKAY and MOORE Circuit Judges, and DUMBAULD, District 

Judge 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

This is a direct appeal in which the defendant claims the 

trial court erred in holding that no standing existed to assert 

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: 89-1141 Document: 010110036164 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 1 
t 

fourth amendment claims and that exigent circumstances existed in 

.. a warrantless entry. The defendant , aLso argues that the trial 

court erred in allowing the government to introduce certain evidence during the cross-examination and rebuttal of defendant's 

direct testimony. 

I. FACTS 

Acting upon an informant's tip, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents and Adams County Sheriff's Department officers instituted surveillance of a gas station located at 5539 N. Washington 

Street, Adams County, Colorado. They observed a repeated sequence 

of events in which Mr. Sanchez (Case No. 89-1150) would enter and 

then exit the gas station with a green camouflage duffle bag, 

place the duffle bag in a white Lincoln Continental, meet with 

various individuals in the car, and then return to the station. 

On one occasion Mr. Sanchez removed the camouflage duffle bag 

from his car and met with Mr. Chessar in a blue vehicle. Because 

the passenger side door was open, Mr. Sanchez and Mr. Chessar were 

obs~rved in what was suspected to be a marijuana transaction. 

Shortly after this meeting Mr. Chessar was arrested when he was 

stopped for questioning and a bag of marijuana was found on the 

floor board near the passenger seat. Subsequent to the arrest of 

Mr. Chessar, Mr. Sanchez was stopped for questioning and also 

arrested. 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 89-1141 Document: 010110036164 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 2 
.-

After the arrests of Mr. Sanchez and Mr. Chessar for mari-

- juana-related offenses, t-he agents re.turned .to the gas station to 

determine if it was occupied. One of the FBI agents knocked on 

the front 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 the 

defendant 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 defendant, the third individual, they observed and smelled marijuana 

throughout the premises. The defendant 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. SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE 

The defendant argues that the trial court erred in holding 

that defendant lacked standing to assert fourth amendment claims 

and in its -alterna~ive holding that exigent cireumstances were 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 89-1141 Document: 010110036164 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 3 
present in the warrantless entry. We held in the related case of 

United States v. Sanchez,, No. -- 89-1150, Order -and Judgment, at 4 

(10th Cir. May , 1990), that Mr. Sanchez had standing to challenge the warrantless entry. Considering Mr. Alamillo's presence 

at the garage, the surrounding circumstances, and his status as an 

invitee of Mr. Sanchez, we are persuaded that the defendant has 

standing to assert fourth amendment rights in order to suppress 

the evidence obtained as a result of the initial warrantless 

entry. Therefore, we REVERSE the trial court's holding that the 

defendant did not have standing. 

However, we AFFIRM the trial court's alternative holding on 

the merits. The district court found that the government established it's burden for the exigent circumstances exception to the 

warrant requirement. Order, March 22, 1989 at 11. We affirmed 

this holding in United States v. Sanchez, No. 89-1150, Order and 

Judgment, at 5 (10th Cir. May , 1990). We AFFIRM the district 

court's finding as applied to Mr. Alamillo for the same reasons we 

articulated in Sanchez. 

III. INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE 

Prior to trial the government stated that it would not introduce Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) prior acts evidence in its 

case-in-chief against the defendant. Specifically, this evidence 

consisted of statements concerning prior marijuana bagging made by 

the defendant to Detective Nicastle, a government witness. At the 

- -· -j oint t -r ial -the def-endant el-ected to take the stand in his own 

- 4 -

Appellate Case: 89-1141 Document: 010110036164 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 4 
J 

defense. On direct examination his own counsel questioned defendant on his .prior• employmentJ The defendant's ~answer- was inconsistent with the statement he had previously made to Detective 

Nicastle. 

When the defendant took the witness stand he placed his credibility at issue. Because his testimony was inconsistent with the 

statement made to Detective Nicastle, the government was free to 

impeach the witness with any evidence available, including the 

evidence it had previously agreed not to introduce. The court 

properly overruled defendant's objection to the government's 

cross-examination on the statement. See United States v. 

Troutman, 814 F.2d 1428, 1449-1450 (10th Cir. 1987). The trial 

court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the government to 

pursue impeachment of defendant's testimony through the prior acts 

evidence. Finding no abuse of discretion, the trial court's order 

is AFFIRMED. 

The trial court's holding that the defendant lacked standing 

is REVERSED, the court's denial of the suppression motion and the 

introduction of cross-examination and rebuttal evidence are 

AFFIRMED. 

- 5 -

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-1141 Document: 010110036164 Date Filed: 06/11/1990 Page: 5