2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-20-2013

USA v. Nikos Santa

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 13-1563

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Nikos Santa" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 1517.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/1517
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 13-1563

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

NIKOS SANTA,

 Appellant

___________ 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 2-12-cr-00108-001)

District Judge: Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno

___________ 

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

September 24, 2013

Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE, and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges.

(Opinion Filed: November 20, 2013)

___________ 

OPINION

___________

VANASKIE, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Nikos Santa pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e), but reserved the right to appeal the 

District Court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Because we agree with the District 
2

Court that the police obtained consent to search the backpack in which the firearm was 

found, we will affirm.

I.

We write primarily for the parties, who are familiar with the facts and procedural 

history of this case. Accordingly, we set forth only those facts necessary to our analysis. 

At approximately 6:30 p.m. on December 23, 2011, in Philadelphia, Santa was 

driving a white van belonging to his girlfriend, Yolanda Veira, who accompanied him in 

the front passenger seat. Police Officer David DeCrosta, who was alone on patrol, saw 

the white van run a stop sign. DeCrosta conducted a traffic stop, and as he walked 

towards the van, he saw Santa place an unknown object near the front passenger floor of

the vehicle. 

DeCrosta requested Santa’s driver’s license and registration. Santa, unable to 

produce identification of any kind, instead provided DeCrosta with false names. After 

confirming that the names were false, DeCrosta removed Santa from the van and advised 

him that DeCrosta could bring him to the police station for fingerprinting to determine his

identity. DeCrosta then placed Santa, without handcuffs, in the back of the police 

vehicle. A few moments later Santa admitted that his name was Nikos Santa. A 

computer check of that name revealed an outstanding bench warrant. DeCrosta arrested 

and handcuffed Santa, keeping him in the police vehicle. 

Upon returning to the van, DeCrosta saw an open school bag on the front

passenger floor between Veira’s feet. He asked Veira what Santa had placed into the 

bag. She claimed that she did not know and said the bag belonged to her daughter. 
3

DeCrosta asked Veira if he could look in the bag. He explained that he did not have a

warrant, and that Veira was not legally obliged to provide consent. Veira orally 

consented and then signed a written consent to search form. DeCrosta then searched the 

bag and found a .38 caliber revolver loaded with two live rounds of ammunition. 

At the suppression hearing, Veira testified that she had signed the consent form

because of threats and coercion, in direct contradiction of her previous testimony under 

oath before the grand jury. The District Court found her testimony not credible, instead 

credited DeCrosta’s testimony, and concluded that Veira’s consent was entirely 

voluntary.

II.

The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have appellate 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Santa contends that the police conducted a warrantless search of the backpack in 

his vehicle without probable cause and that no exception to the warrant requirement 

existed, thus violating his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. “We 

review a District Court’s denial of a motion to suppress for clear error as to the 

underlying factual findings and exercise plenary review over the District Court’s 

application of the law to those facts. A District Court’s determination of consent to 

search is a finding of fact.” United States v. Lockett, 406 F.3d 207, 211 (3d Cir. 2005) 

(internal citations omitted).

Having carefully reviewed the matter, we conclude that the record supports the 

District Court’s finding that Santa’s passenger, who was also the owner of the 
4

automobile, voluntarily gave the police oral and written consent to search the contents of 

the backpack in which the gun was found. Accordingly, the denial of Santa’s motion to 

suppress was proper. See United States v. Price, 558 F.3d 270, 277 (3d Cir. 2009) (“‘It is 

. . . well settled that one of the specifically established exceptions to the requirements of 

both a warrant and probable cause is a search that is conducted pursuant to consent.’”

(quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973)).

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.