Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03274/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03274-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesus Garcia Ibarra
Appellee
Osvaldo Hernandez Leon
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge of the United States Court of

International Trade, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3274

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Minnesota. 

Osvaldo Hernandez Leon; *

Jesus Garcia Ibarra, *

*

Defendants - Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 10, 2004

Filed: August 26, 2004 

___________

Before MURPHY and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG, Judge.1

___________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

Osvaldo Hernandez Leon and Jesus Garcia Ibarra were indicted for conspiracy

and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine after a search of their

residence uncovered 946.6 grams of methamphetamine, 13.56 grams of cocaine, a bag

of marijuana, ammunition, and a large amount of cash. They moved to suppress that

Appellate Case: 03-3274 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2004 Entry ID: 1803680 
-2-

evidence as well as statements they subsequently made to the police. The district

court granted the motion, and the government appeals. We reverse and remand. 

The case arose from a series of letters sent by a concerned citizen to the

mayor's office. The letters complained about heavy foot and vehicle traffic and

suspected drug activity at 1054 Flandrau Street in St. Paul, Minnesota and included

license numbers of vehicles visiting the address. After police determined that one of

those vehicles had been stolen, Officer Ronald Lehner of the St. Paul FORCE Unit

(a drug interdiction task force) began conducting surveillance of the house. During

periodic surveillance from October 2002 through January 2003, he observed a

suspicious number of short term visitors to the house.

On the evening of February 11, 2003, Lehner went to the residence with

Officers Sontoya and Chung to conduct a "knock and talk." Garcia Ibarra's aunt,

Jacqueline Mancillas, answered the door. The officers explained in English and

Spanish that they were there to investigate suspicious activity and possible drug

trafficking at the address. Mancillas permitted the officers to enter the house and told

them that she lived there with her sister Maria and several other people, including

Garcia Ibarra and Hernandez Leon. The officers said they wanted to talk to the men,

and she motioned toward the stairs leading to the basement.

As Officer Lehner approached the basement stairs, a young girl yelled "The

cops are here!" From the top of the stairs, Lehner saw one man coming up and

another behind him. When the two saw Lehner, they turned back and rushed into a

basement room. Lenher followed, but he was concerned for his safety and that of

Officer Sontoya. Lehner peered around the corner into the room to check whether

either man had a weapon. Hernandez Leon had his back to Lehner, but Lehner could

see him place something on the headboard of a bed and cover it with a stocking cap.

Lehner entered the room and asked what he was hiding. Hernandez Leon responded,

"I wasn't hiding anything."

Appellate Case: 03-3274 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2004 Entry ID: 1803680 
-3-

In his warrant affidavit, Lehner stated that

For Officer safety reasons, I then took a closer look at the object Leon

was attempting to conceal. I observed a partial piece of clear plastic

baggie which is consistent with narcotics packaging. I walked over and

lifted up the stocking hat and observed a plastic baggie, tied off, that

contained a green leafy substance, consistent with marijuana by sight

and smell. I then asked Leon what it was. Leon replied, "weed." I

recovered the marijuana at that time and asked if he had anything else

illegal in the bedroom. Leon replied, "No." 

Lehner also observed in plain view a green marble pipe that appeared to contain

marijuana residue. His affidavit also reported that after Garcia Ibarra told him he was

the co-owner of the house with his mother, he asked him if there was anything else

illegal in the bedroom. Garcia Ibarra replied, "No, go ahead and look." 

While Officer Sontoya remained in the bedroom, Lehner walked into an

adjacent room which contained a pool table and a dresser. The top dresser drawer

was open about four inches, and Lehner saw that a loaded magazine for a .22 caliber

handgun was inside it. He opened the drawer further and saw numerous loose bullets.

He then opened the drawer below and saw several clear plastic bags containing a

white powder, which he believed to be cocaine or methamphetamine, an electronic

scale, and a food packaging sealer. The latter items are commonly used to weigh and

package narcotics for distribution.

At this point Lehner left the home to obtain a search warrant. The two

remaining officers handcuffed Garcia Ibarra and Hernandez Leon and waited to

ensure that no one would move anything before Lehner's return. Other officers

arrived in the interim and so did Garcia Ibarra's mother, Maria Mancillas. After she

was told about the evidence found in the basement and that Officer Lehner was

seeking a search warrant, she consented to a search of the home. No further search

was conducted, however, until after Lehner returned with a warrant issued by a state

Appellate Case: 03-3274 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/26/2004 Entry ID: 1803680 
-4-

judge. Thereafter officers executed the warrant, seized evidence, and arrested the

defendants. 

Defendants filed a joint motion to suppress the evidence seized from the house

and their subsequent statements to law enforcement. At a hearing before a magistrate

judge, Lehner testified that he had peeked around the corner into the basement room

"to see if I was going to get shot or — for my safety, just take a quick look in." He

stated that "in knock-and-talks, you never know what you're going to get and you got

to be very careful. . . . Drug dealers are known to carry, you know, weapons. I didn't

know what I was, you know, going to see once I come around that corner." When he

saw Hernandez Leon hide something under the hat, he immediately went to

investigate for his own safety and picked up the hat after noticing plastic consistent

with drug packaging sticking out from underneath it. Defense counsel asked him

whether there had been "anything preventing you from going to court and applying

for a search warrant" before he lifted the hat. Lehner replied that he did not think he

could get a warrant "on what we had at that time." He testified that Garcia Ibarra

granted him permission to "take a look around," and he then found the evidence in the

next room.

The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that

the suppression motion be granted after finding, on the basis of the warrant affidavit,

that Garcia Ibarra had consented only to a search of the bedroom and that Lehner had

exceeded the scope of that consent by searching the adjacent room. The judge

concluded that the evidence found in that room should be excised from the warrant

affidavit and that the redacted affidavit did not establish probable cause. See United

States v. Templeman, 938 F.2d 122, 124-25 (8th Cir. 1991) (warrant affidavits that

contain information from an unlawful search are evaluated by deleting that

information). The magistrate judge concluded that without the evidence from the

other room , the police could not have relied on the warrant in good faith because the

affidavit was "so lacking in indicia of probable cause." See United States v. Leon,

Appellate Case: 03-3274 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/26/2004 Entry ID: 1803680 
-5-

468 U.S. 897, 922 (1984). The magistrate judge also found that Jacqueline Mancillas

had not consented to a search of the basement and that Maria Mancillas's consent was

invalid because it was given under duress and subsequent to an unlawful search. 

The government filed objections. It objected to the findings that the officers

had not received valid consent to search the basement from the Mancillas or from

Garcia Ibarra. It also objected to the conclusion that the redacted warrant affidavit

was insufficient to support probable cause. In a brief order the district court adopted

the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, and the government timely appealed.

On its interlocutory appeal, the government concedes that Officer Lehner

exceeded the scope of Hernandez Leon's consent when he went into the adjacent

room where he found the methamphetamine, cocaine, ammunition, packaging

equipment, and scale. It also raises no challenge to the findings in the district court

that neither Jacqueline nor Maria Mancillas gave a valid consent to search the

basement. The government focuses on its argument that the remaining evidence in

the redacted warrant affidavit was sufficient to support a finding of probable cause

to search beyond the bedroom. Defendants argue that the district court correctly

concluded that this evidence was not sufficient to support probable cause. They also

argue that the discovery of the marijuana under the hat was the product of an unlawful

search. Neither the magistrate judge nor the district court discussed whether the

marijuana was lawfully discovered or its significance on the issue of probable cause.

The Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," and

it requires probable cause for lawful searches and seizures. U.S. CONST. amend. IV.

A warrantless search is presumptively unreasonable absent some exception to the

warrant requirement such as exigency brought about by a legitimate concern for the

safety of officers or others, see United States v. Kuenstler, 325 F.3d 1015, 1021 (8th

Cir. 2003), or the possibility that evidence will be removed or destroyed, see United

Appellate Case: 03-3274 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/26/2004 Entry ID: 1803680 
-6-

States v. Blake, 484 F.2d 50, 54 (8th Cir. 1973). The totality of the circumstances is

considered in determining whether probable cause exists to support a search warrant,

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230 (1983), and a warrant is supported by probable

cause if "there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be

found in the place to be searched," United States v. Mahler, 141 F.3d 811, 813 (8th

Cir. 1998). The sufficiency of a warrant affidavit which contains information from

an unlawful search is evaluated after deleting that information. See Templeman, 938

F.2d at 124-25. We review a district court's factual findings for clear error and its

conclusion that a search violated the Fourth Amendment de novo. United States v.

Newton, 259 F.3d 964, 966 (8th Cir. 2001). 

The government argues that the search warrant affidavit would still have

supported a finding of probable cause after excision of the evidence discovered in the

adjacent room. The redacted affidavit includes references to the citizen reports about

suspected drug trafficking at the address and Officer Lehner's observations of heavy

foot and vehicle traffic there, involving short visits during all hours of the night. It

states that Officer Lehner had been a police officer for nine years and that based on

his training and experience, the activity at the house "resembled narcotics traffic

coming and going from the property." It describes the officers' visit to the home, the

fact that Jacqueline Mancillas had told the officers several young Hispanic males

lived in the basement, the fact that the defendants hurried back into the basement

upon seeing Officer Lehner, and his observation of Hernandez Leon "quickly

plac[ing] his stocking hat over a small object." It reports Hernandez Leon's

misleading claim that he "wasn't hiding anything" and Officer Lehner's discovery

under the hat of a "plastic baggie, tied off, that contained a green leafy substance,

consistent with marijuana by sight and smell." It reports Hernandez Leon's admission

that the substance was "weed" and notes the presence in plain view of a green marble

pipe which appeared to contain marijuana residue. 

Appellate Case: 03-3274 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/26/2004 Entry ID: 1803680 
-7-

As the government points out, our court has repeatedly held that the discovery

of drugs or paraphernalia in or around a suspect's house is significant on the issue of

probable cause. For example, the discovery of marijuana seeds and stems in the

defendant's trash was alone sufficient to establish probable cause to search a house

in United States v. Briscoe, 317 F.3d 906, 908-09 (8th Cir. 2003). An affidavit

recounting the discovery of drug paraphernalia with residue in defendants' trash,

coupled with one defendant's drug record, established probable cause for a search of

the house in United States v. Reinholz, 245 F.3d 765, 776-77 (8th Cir. 2001). And

the discovery of drug paraphernalia and an address book in the defendant's trash,

which corroborated an informant's tip about drug dealing, established probable cause

to search the house in United States v. Gonzalez-Rodriguez, 239 F.3d 948, 951 (8th

Cir. 2001). 

In the present case, the police undertook surveillance of the house and observed

foot and vehicle traffic consistent with narcotics trafficking because of citizen

complaints about suspected drug dealing. They obtained entry into the house by

consent and discovered marijuana and a drug pipe inside it, not merely in the outside

trash. The discovery of drugs and paraphernalia corroborated the citizen reports of

suspected drug trafficking. This, in combination with the officer's observations of

heavy foot traffic by short term visitors at all hours of the night over a several month

period and the defendants' furtive behavior, was sufficient to establish a probability

that more contraband would be discovered elsewhere in the house. See Gates, 462

U.S. at 230 (probable cause is to be determined based on the totality of the

circumstances). We conclude that the district court erred as a matter of law in

holding that the excised warrant affidavit would not establish probable cause for a

search of the basement.

That conclusion does not end the analysis, however, because the defendants

contend that the marijuana was unlawfully discovered, that Officer Lehner lacked a

warrant to search under the hat, and that no exception to the warrant requirement

Appellate Case: 03-3274 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/26/2004 Entry ID: 1803680 
2

The government has not argued on appeal that Officer Lehner lifted the hat out

of concern for his safety. Although Lehner testified that he initially approached the

hat out of concern for his safety, he stated in his warrant affidavit and in his testimony

that upon closer inspection he suspected it concealed narcotics.

-8-

applies. They assert that references to the marijuana must also be deleted from the

warrant affidavit and that without this evidence, the affidavit would be insufficient

to establish probable cause to search outside the bedroom. 

The government concedes in this appeal that lifting the hat was a search for

purposes of the Fourth Amendment, see Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 324-25

(1987) (moving object in order to expose parts that are not in plain view constitutes

a search), but asserts that Officer Lehner had probable cause to search under the hat

after he saw Hernandez Leon use it to conceal something consistent with drug

packaging. The district court did not discuss this issue. The government argues that

the warrantless search was permissible because Lehner believed that the hat

concealed evidence which was threatened with imminent removal or destruction if he

did not retrieve it immediately.2

 See United States v. Esparza, 162 F.3d 978, 980 (8th

Cir. 1998) (warrantless search of bathroom lawful where it appeared occupant might

dispose of drugs); Blake, 484 F.2d at 54 (8th Cir. 1973) (officers could search

basement for purse believed to contain drugs given the probability that it would be

removed by defendant or some third party). Defendants respond that police could

have secured the house to prevent removal or destruction of any evidence while they

obtained a warrant. 

The exigency of a situation is to be judged based on the facts and

circumstances known to the police at the time of the search. See United States v.

Cooper, 168 F.3d 336, 339 (8th Cir. 1999). Although the defendants argue that the

police could have secured the house to prevent removal or destruction of the evidence

under the hat while they obtained a warrant, it is unclear from the record whether that

would have appeared feasible or prudent at the time of the search. At the time Officer

Appellate Case: 03-3274 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/26/2004 Entry ID: 1803680 
-9-

Lehner lifted the hat, the police had only been present in the house for a short time.

They may not yet have had the opportunity to determine the number, location,

identity, or intention of other people in the house. The house was the site of heavy

foot and vehicle traffic by suspected drug buyers and the residence of at least six

people, one of whom had already warned everyone within earshot that the police had

arrived. Officer Lehner had already witnessed one attempt by Hernandez Leon to

hide evidence, and it may have seemed likely that he or someone else would try again

if given the opportunity. Because the district court concluded that the warrant

affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause even with the references to the

marijuana, it did not discuss or make findings or conclusions on whether the

warrantless search that recovered the marijuana was lawful. Since it is unclear on the

basis of the record before us whether there was an apparent threat of imminent

removal or destruction of evidence or whether some other exception to the warrant

requirement might apply to that search, we must remand to the district court for

further proceedings.

For the reasons discussed, we reverse the holding of the district court that the

excised warrant affidavit could not establish probable cause and vacate the

suppression order, and remand for further findings on whether the marijuana in the

bedroom was lawfully discovered and for further consideration of the applicability

of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), to this case. The panel will retain

jurisdiction in the event of any further appeal.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3274 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/26/2004 Entry ID: 1803680