Opinion ID: 60506
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Public Records Hearsay Exception

Text: For the first time on appeal, Gonzalez-Perales argues that Officer Ramos’s testimony regarding the October encounter was inadmissible hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8) because the results of the Customs computer system check involved matters observed by law enforcement in a criminal case. At trial, Gonzalez-Perales objected to the admission of this testimony solely upon the grounds of the Confrontation Clause and Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Accordingly, because she now raises an argument that is different from the one raised in the district court, this Court reviews her hearsay argument for plain error. See United States v. Jimenez, 256 F.3d 330, 340 (5th Cir. 2001) (“When a defendant . . . urges a different ground for the objection on appeal than before the district court, we review for plain error.” (citing United States v. Heath, 970 F.2d 1397, 1407 (5th Cir. 1992))). The public records hearsay exception provides that the following is admissible despite the general prohibition against hearsay: (8) Public records and reports. Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there 5 No. 06-40684 was a duty to report, excluding, however, in criminal cases matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel, or (C) in civil actions and proceedings and against the Government in criminal cases, factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness. FED. R. EVID. 803(8). It is well settled that “[c]ustoms . . . officials are ‘law enforcement personnel’ within the meaning of [this rule].” United States v. Puente, 826 F.2d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted). This Circuit makes a distinction, however, between “law enforcement reports prepared in a routine, nonadversarial setting, and those resulting from the arguably more subjective endeavor of investigating a crime and evaluating the results of that investigation.” United States v. Quezada, 754 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir. 1985). In other words, “documents recording routine, objective observations, made as part of the everyday function of the preparing official or agency” are admissible under Rule 803(8)(B), even if the documents are prepared by a police officer or other law enforcement official. Id. Here, the Customs computer information that the passengers had been returned to Mexico was recorded by Officer Ramos as part of a routine, administrative procedure in a non-adversarial setting. Officer Ramos testified that she and the other officers use the Customs computer system frequently to record encounters with aliens, including the aliens’ fingerprints, whether those aliens are prosecuted or returned to Mexico. In addition, she testified that the particular computer check at issue revealed that the two passengers had been apprehended in the same clothing by Border Patrol for “[e]ntry without documents” on October 4, 2005, that the encounter was recorded into the computer system, and that the women were returned to Mexico without prosecution. 6 No. 06-40684 Gonzalez-Perales baldly asserts that while our precedent allows for the admission of public records that “reflect objective facts,” the instant IDENT/IAFIS records reflect “criminal interrogations and law enforcement investigative measures.” To the contrary, the repetitive, everyday IDENT/IAFIS notations are exactly the kind of “mechanically register[ed,] . . . unambiguous factual matter[s]” that this Circuit has found to be inherently reliable.1 See id. And “[t]here is no reason to believe that because this information was later retrieved in connection with litigation, it is less reliable than when first recorded.” Puente, 826 F.2d at 1418. Accordingly, Officer Ramos’s testimony regarding the October alientransporting encounter was admissible under the public records hearsay exception. Gonzalez-Perales has not shown any error, let alone plain error.