Opinion ID: 203974
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The significance of the protective sweep

Text: Contrary to the government's suggestion, the district court's conclusion that the agents might not have sought the November 16 search warrant if the protective sweep had not occurred is well supported by the record. At the suppression hearing, Agent Roberto testified that after receiving information from RCMP and eBay, he was not concerned about the chemicals being in [Siciliano's] house, and decided to obtain other evidence that there was manufacturing going on. Surveillance and the trash pull did not provide the agents with this evidence. According to testimony at the suppression hearing, the agents did not observe Siciliano interact with anyone while under surveillance. The results of the trash pull did not have any bearing on the chemical ordering, and Agent Roberto testified that he did not apply for a warrant as a result of what [was] found. As of November 16, the date of the interview, Agent Roberto testified that he had no knowledge that anyone had visited Siciliano's apartment to purchase drugs. While Agent Roberto had concluded that chemicals were delivered to 85 Surrey Street # 1, he remained uncertain about the manufacturing of MDMA on the premises. When asked, There could have been a lab. There might not have been. You didn't know, did you?, he agreed. This testimony suggests that the agents desired to obtain evidence, besides the record of chemical orders, of MDMA manufacturing in the apartment before seeking a warrant. Yet nothing that occurred between August and November 16, 2006, provided the agents with that evidence. Moreover, the November 16 interview itself, while strongly suggestive of criminal wrongdoing, also did not supply the agents with evidence of manufacturing at Siciliano's address. During the interview, Siciliano told the agents that he had purchased the chemicals for someone named Frank, whose identifying information he did not disclose. Reasonable agents might have concluded that while Siciliano was involved in drugs, manufacturing was not occurring at the 85 Surrey Street # 1 address. After all, they had investigated the address for over a month and discovered nothing. As the district court noted, the only evidence of drugs on the premises was discovered during the protective sweep. It was thus the protective sweep that provided the agents with what they soughtfurther evidence that Siciliano was involved in manufacturing MDMA on the premises. Moreover, absent evidence of drugs or chemicals in the Surrey Street apartment, the agents may not have been concerned, as the government suggests they were, with the destruction of evidence at that location. Indeed, the district court could fairly infer that the fear of the officers that Siciliano would destroy physical evidence was generated by the physical evidence observed during the protective sweep. The record, as it existed at the time of the suppression hearing, does not leave us with a strong, unyielding belief that the district court erred in concluding that the government did not establish that the agents would have sought the November 16 warrant even if the unlawful protective sweep had not occurred. Rather, the district court's finding is supported by a reasonable view of the evidencetestimony from both Agent Roberto and Agent DiTulio about what led them to freeze the premises, as well as testimony about the goal of the investigation and earlier decisions not to seek a warrant. Therefore, the district court did not commit clear error. Pursuant to Dessesaure and the district court's findings, the November 16 search was not an independent source of the evidence discovered in the apartment and subsequently on the seized computers. See Dessesaure, 429 F.3d at 367. The evidence was therefore rightly suppressed.