Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cr-03749/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cr-03749-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kurt Hankes
Defendant
Kurt Allen Hankes
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

On that date, the government had not yet disclosed the grand jury transcript of Agent

Brandt’s testimony. The parties asked the Court to defer issuing its R & R until the transcript

was disclosed. (Doc. 81, pp. 142-143). The Court was to be advised of the disclosure. Upon

inquiry on 1/3/12, the Court was advised that the transcript was disclosed on 12/11/12.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Kurt Allen Hankes, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR 11-3749-TUC-CKJ(LAB)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The District Court referred this case to the Magistrate Judge for a hearing on the

defendant’s motion to suppress evidence for violations of the Fourth Amendment. The

defendant, Kurt Allen Hankes, argues that all evidence obtained from the search of his home

on September 28, 2011 must be suppressed because it was conducted by the probation officer

without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion in violation of his Fourth

Amendment rights. (Doc. 46, 57). He also argues that because the federal search warrant

relied on the unlawful probation search, all evidence seized by federal agents must be

suppressed as the fruit of the poisonous tree.

An evidentiary hearing was held on November 29, 2012.1

 The witnesses who testified

Case 4:11-cr-03749-CKJ-LAB Document 83 Filed 01/10/13 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

The government has agreed to dismiss Count 2. (Doc. 41, p. 3, n. 3).

- 2 -

were Pima County Adult Probation Officer Martha Esquivel; Alcohol, Tobacco, and

Firearms (ATF) Special Agent Creighton Brandt, and ATF Supervisory Special Agent Rick

Serrano.

Charge:

The defendant is charged by indictment in Count 1 with possession of ammunition by

a convicted felon, in violation of Title 18 United States Code §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), and

in Count 2 with possession of an explosive by a convicted felon, in violation of Title 18

United States Code §§ 842(i)(1) and 844(a)(1).2

Motion to Suppress Evidence:

The defendant argues that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when his home

was searched by the probation officer without reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or a

warrant. He claims that any evidence obtained as a result of the illegal search, including the

evidence found by federal agents who secured a search warrant based on the evidence

obtained during the probation search, must be suppressed.

The Court concludes the initial search by the probation officer did not require

probable cause or a warrant. It required only reasonable suspicion and authorization by a

condition of probation. The Court finds, however, there was no reasonable suspicion,

rendering the initial search unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The

search warrant based on the initial unlawful search is not valid. Therefore, the evidence

seized pursuant to the warrant is inadmissible in the government’s case-in-chief.

EVIDENCE:

Martha Esquivel

Martha Esquivel is a Pima County Adult probation officer. (Doc. 81, p. 7). Part of

her duties is to conduct random home visits of the probationers she supervises to verify that

they are in compliance and to monitor their progress. (Doc. 81, p. 8). Probationers are

informed that they may be subject to random home visits, which can involve searches. (Doc.

Case 4:11-cr-03749-CKJ-LAB Document 83 Filed 01/10/13 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

81, p. 9). If the probation officer suspects suspicious activity, she has the right to conduct

a search of the residence unannounced, and she does not need a warrant. (Doc. 81, p. 9).

When a probation officer has information that might warrant a search, she consults with a

search team coordinator and a supervisor to get approval. (Doc. 81, p. 10). When probation

officers are supervising probationers, they are “duty bound” to act on information they

receive in order to protect the public. (Doc. 81, pp. 10-11).

Officer Esquivel was supervising Kurt Hankes when she participated in a search of

his home on 9/28/11. (Doc. 81, p. 11). At the time she began supervising Mr. Hankes, Ms.

Esquivel reviewed with him condition 5, which says that he must submit to search and

seizure of his person or property by the probation department without a search warrant.

(Doc. 81, p. 13). 

Mr. Hankes’ ex-girlfriend called Ms. Esquivel and informed her that she was sure that

Mr. Hankes had weapons in his home, and she feared for her safety. (Doc. 81, p. 13). The

ex-girlfriend had not been in Mr. Hankes’ home for months. (Doc. 81, p. 29). Having

weapons was a violation of Mr. Hankes’ probation. (Doc. 81, p. 14). 

Ms. Esquivel received calls from an FBI agent and an ATF agent regarding the

allegation by the ex-girlfriend. She also discussed the situation with her supervisor. (Doc.

81, p. 14). Ms. Esquivel was concerned about the information but also was concerned about

whether the allegation was true because Mr. Hankes and his ex-girlfriend were in a volatile

relationship and a custody battle over their baby. (Doc. 81, pp. 14-15, 29). The woman had

made allegations in the past and then retracted her statements. (Doc. 81, p. 15). Ms.

Esquivel’s probation notes from 9/28/11 at 9:30 am state that Agent Brandt called and told

her that the ex-girlfriend, Gayle Grant, retracted her allegation and no longer believed there

were weapons in the home, but because of Mr. Hankes’ paranoia, he might have a handgun

in his room by the bed. (Doc. 81, pp. 120-121).

Initially, Ms. Esquivel considered conducting a random home visit the next day, but

after speaking with her supervisor, she decided to conduct a search. (Doc. 81, p. 16). She

told an agent from the FBI or ATF of her intention. The agent asked if she could wait a few

Case 4:11-cr-03749-CKJ-LAB Document 83 Filed 01/10/13 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

days, but whether to search now or later was her decision to make subject to her supervisor’s

approval. (Doc. 81, p. 16). Other than the allegation from the ex-girlfriend, Ms. Esquivel

had no concerns about Mr. Hankes. (Doc. 81, p. 39). Searches, however, may be conducted

regardless of whether the probationer is compliant or not. (Doc. 81, p. 48). It is Ms.

Esquivel’s understanding that no level of suspicion is needed to conduct a full search of a

probationer’s home. (Doc. 81, pp. 50-51).

The morning of the search, the ex-girlfriend called and recanted her allegations. Ms.

Esquivel consulted with the search team. They decided to conduct the search because they

were ready to go and wanted to confirm whether the information about weapons in Mr.

Hankes’ home was true or not. (Doc. 81, p. 18). The probation office has a policy to

respond any time there is any allegation involving weapons or drugs, even from an

anonymous source. (Doc. 81, pp. 38-39). Mr. Hankes was contacted the morning of the

search and advised that the probation officer was coming to his home. He was cooperative

and came home, at which time he was advised that the home would be searched. (Doc. 81,

p. 19). Mr. Hankes was handcuffed for officer safety and was walked inside the home. The

search began. (Doc. 81, p. 20). Ms. Esquivel sat with Mr. Hankes in the kitchen during the

search as part of the normal procedure. (Doc. 81, p. 20). 

The search was a full search. Mr. Hankes was not asked for his consent. The search

team consisted of 6 probation officers. Ms. Esquivel did not believe they would find

anything at the home. (Doc. 81, pp. 40-41). Were it not for the office policy, Ms. Esquivel

would not have conducted the search. (Doc. 81, p. 45).

The search revealed some ammunition and some type of explosive. Per normal

procedure, the sheriff’s department was called. ATF Agent Creighton Brandt was also

notified. (Doc. 81, pp. 21-22). ATF agents said they were taking over and probation was

free to leave. (Doc. 81, p. 22).

Creighton Brandt

Creighton Brandt is a special agent with ATF. (Doc. 81, p. 54). Agent Brandt

received information from his supervisor, Rick Serrano, that an Assistant Special Agent in

Case 4:11-cr-03749-CKJ-LAB Document 83 Filed 01/10/13 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

charge of the Tucson FBI office advised him that Hankes, on felony probation, might possess

firearms or ammunition. (Doc. 81, pp. 54-55). After speaking with Martha Esquivel, Agent

Brandt made contact with the source of the information, Gayle Grant, who stated she

believed Mr. Hankes had firearms and ammunition in a storage facility and possibly a gun

at his home. (Doc. 81, pp. 56-57). ATF decided not to act on the information, but Agent

Brandt called Monica Esquivel and told her that if she did a home inspection and found

anything that would constitute a violation, she could call him if she needed help. (Doc. 81,

p. 58).

When Agent Brandt was told that probation located ammunition and suspected

explosives, that information was used to obtain a search warrant. (Doc. 81, pp. 59-60). The

affidavit in support of the warrant relied exclusively on information provided by probation

and not on any information from Ms. Grant. (Doc. 81, p. 61). 

Agent Brandt went into the house to make contact with Mr. Hankes at about 3:00

p.m., before the warrant was signed by the judge at 8:40 p.m. (Doc. 81, p. 70). An Oro

Valley detective was already on the scene. (Doc. 81, pp. 70-71). When Agent Brandt

entered the house, a few items were pointed out to him, but he went directly to speak with

Mr. Hankes and did not look through the house until the search warrant was obtained. (Doc.

81, p. 72). His report states that he did a visual inspection of the found ammunition before

contacting Mr. Hankes. (Doc. 81, p. 73). The search warrant affidavit does not tell the judge

that Agent Brandt had entered the house before securing the warrant. (Doc. 81, p. 110). He

did not base the affidavit on any of his own personal observations. (Doc. 81, p. 115). 

Sergeant Christopher Rogers of the Pima County Sheriff’s Department bomb squad

was in the house before Agent Brandt and probably did some kind of inspection. (Doc. 81,

pp. 92-93). Other than the probation officers, no other law enforcement conducted a search

prior to obtaining the search warrant. (Doc. 81, p. 110).

Rick Serrano

Rick Serrano is a supervisory special agent with ATF. (Doc. 81, p. 127). Agent

Serrano received a telephone call from FBI Agent Daneka Dedus. (Doc. 81, p. 129). Agent

Case 4:11-cr-03749-CKJ-LAB Document 83 Filed 01/10/13 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

Dedus explained that two weeks earlier, a woman stopped by the office and reported a person

on probation in possession of a large number of firearms. (Doc. 81, pp. 128-129). Agent

Serrano contacted Mr. Hankes’ probation officer, Monica Esquivel. (Doc. 81, p. 129). He

planned to look into the information and determine how to proceed. (Doc. 81, p. 130).

Agent Serrano assigned the case to Agent Brandt. (Doc. 81, p. 131). Agent Serrano believed

they had probable cause to search Mr. Hankes’ home based on the information from the

informant given to the FBI agent and Monica Esquivel, as well as Agent Brandt’s

observations at the residence during the search. (Doc. 81, pp. 132-133). Agent Serrano was

very clear with Ms. Esquivel that he was not directing the probation officer to conduct a

search. (Doc. 81, pp. 139-140).

DISCUSSION:

Defendant Hankes argues that the Fourth Amendment requires that the probation

officer have reasonable suspicion to search a probationer’s home and that a tip from an

unreliable informant cannot form reasonable suspicion. He claims that if the probation

search was in violation of the Fourth Amendment then all evidence discovered as a result of

the federal search warrant must be suppressed because the warrant was based on evidence

found during the unlawful search. 

The government argues that a probation officer is authorized to search a person and

his property without a search warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion. No level of

suspicion is required.

The Fourth Amendment requires that a search be conducted based on a warrant unless

an exception is proven by the state. California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 390, 105 S.Ct. 2066,

2068 (1985). The lawfulness of a search is based on the totality of the circumstances. U.S.

v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695 (1981). When the search is of a

probationer’s home, the warrant requirement is relaxed, but the search still must be

reasonable. Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873 and 879-80, 107 S.Ct. 3164, 3168, 3171-

72 (1987). A warrantless search satisfies the Fourth Amendment where there is both

reasonable suspicion and a probation condition that authorizes a warrantless search. U.S. v.

Case 4:11-cr-03749-CKJ-LAB Document 83 Filed 01/10/13 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 112-22, 122 S.Ct. 587, 592-93 (2001).

 Reasonable suspicion requires specific articulable facts that form the basis for

particularized suspicion when considered with objective and reasonable inferences. United

States v. Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Reasonable

suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause and may be supported by less

reliable information. U.S. v. Rowland, 464 F.3d 899, 907 (9th Cir. 2006), citing Alabama v.

White, 496 U.S. 325, 330, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 2416 (1990). It depends on the content of the

information and the degree of reliability, which are both considered in the totality of the

circumstances analysis. Id. More information is required to establish reasonable suspicion

if the tip has a low degree of reliability. Id. 

In determining the reliability and veracity of an informant’s tip, the totality of the

circumstances must be considered. U.S. V. Villasenor, 608 F.3d 467 (9th Cir. 2010). The

court should consider a number of factors. A known informant is more reliable than an

anonymous informant. Rowland, 464 F.3d at 907. An informant who has a history of

reliability is more reliable than an unproven informant. Id. at 908. The tip is more reliable

if the basis of the informant’s knowledge is known. Id. Predictive information about future

events that is corroborated by police observation or involves a person’s intimate affairs that

could not be observed by the general public may be considered reliable, especially if it relates

to suspicious activities rather than innocent conduct. Id.

Mr. Hankes’ probation condition number 5 states that he must submit to search and

seizure of his person or property by the adult probation department without a search warrant.

The probation officer, Monica Esquivel, testified that if she suspected suspicious activity she

could conduct a search of the home without a warrant. 

The decision to search Mr. Hankes’ home was based on information provided by

Gayle Grant, Mr. Hankes’ ex-girlfriend, that he had weapons in his home, in violation of his

probation. The informant’s identity was known. Her history of reliability however was

questionable. She had made allegations in the past and then retracted them. She and Mr.

Hankes were in a volatile relationship and a contentious child custody battle. Prior to the

Case 4:11-cr-03749-CKJ-LAB Document 83 Filed 01/10/13 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 -

search of the home, Ms. Esquivel was informed that Ms. Grant retracted her accusation. Ms.

Grant did not provide the basis of her knowledge and had not been in Mr. Hankes’ home for

months. She provided no predictive information. The informant’s information was not

reliable and did not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion.

The information from the unlawful probation search was the sole basis for the search

warrant obtained by the ATF agents. The Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule applies to

evidence that is obtained by means of an illegal search. Wong Sun v. U.S., 371 U.S. 471,

484-88, 83 S.Ct. 407, 415-18 (1963). There is a clear causal connection between the illegal

conduct and the evidence the defendant seeks to suppress. See U.S. v. Crawford, 372 F.3d

1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2004).

RECOMMENDATION:

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that, after its independent review of the

record, the District Court GRANT the motion to suppress evidence.

Government’s counsel may serve and file written objections within 14 days. If

objections are not timely filed, the parties’ right to de novo review may be waived. No reply

shall be filed unless leave is granted from the District Court.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this Report and Recommendation

to all parties.

DATED this 9th day of January, 2013.

Case 4:11-cr-03749-CKJ-LAB Document 83 Filed 01/10/13 Page 8 of 8