Opinion ID: 201314
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Search of the Suitcase.

Text: In an attempt to remove the most incriminating piece of evidence from the mix, Del Rosario challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the contents of the suitcase.4 4 The district judge originally sent the motion to suppress to a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing and recommended denial of the -19- Del Rosario trains his fire on the district court's determination that the DEA agents secured Del Rosario's valid consent to conduct the search. As framed, this argument calls into question the court's subsidiary findings of fact. We review these findings for clear error, see United States v. Zapata, 18 F.3d 971, 975 (1st Cir. 1994), while affording plenary review to the district court's ultimate constitutional conclusion that Del Rosario's rights were not violated, see United States v. Laine, 270 F.3d 71, 74 (1st Cir. 2003). Two witnesses appeared at the suppression hearing: Del Rosario and DEA supervisor Elvin Laboy. They offered differing accounts of the events that took place inside the DEA's airport office. Laboy testified that Del Rosario admitted ownership of the suitcase and freely consented to a search of it.5 Del Rosario motion. Del Rosario then filed a timely objection to the magistrate judge's report. The district judge overruled this objection and adopted the magistrate's reasoning. For simplicity's sake, we do not distinguish between the two judicial officers, but, rather, take an institutional view and refer to the determinations below as those of the district court. See, e.g., United States v. Maldonado, 356 F.3d 130, 134 n.1 (1st Cir. 2004). 5 Although his brief is unclear on the point, Del Rosario appears to be making a poorly developed argument that Laboy's testimony included hearsay and, thus, should not have been considered. That argument is hopeless. For one thing, Del Rosario made no contemporaneous objection to the testimony. See United States v. Saccoccia, 58 F.3d 754, 773 (1st Cir. 1995) (explaining that an appellant's burden increases substantially when he has failed to advance a contemporaneous objection). For another thing, testimony given at a suppression hearing is not subject to the usual proscriptions against hearsay evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 104(a); see also United States v. Schaefer, 87 F.3d 562, 570 (1st -20- testified that Laboy was not even present when the suitcase was opened and that he never consented to a search. Weighing the two sharply conflicting narratives, the district court found Laboy truthful and rejected Del Rosario's version. Since Laboy's testimony is plausible on its face and not inconsistent with the other information that is known about the events in question,6 the district court's finding demands our respect. See United States v. Weidul, 325 F.3d 50, 53 (1st Cir. 2003) (explaining that a district court's choice between two plausible competing interpretations of the facts cannot be clearly erroneous); Jackson v. United States, 156 F.3d 230, 232-33 (1st Cir. 1998) (similar). As a fallback, Del Rosario offers an alternative argument. He suggests that any consent he might have given was tainted by coercion. That is whistling past the graveyard. A nisi prius court's determination that consent was voluntary is a factual finding, not a legal one, and thus is reviewed only for clear error. Laine, 270 F.3d at 75. The only real question for Cir. 1996). 6 We reject Del Rosario's complaint that Laboy's testimony at the suppression hearing contradicts a DEA record indicating that Agent Douglas Furlough was the person who requested the consent. At trial, Furlough testified that both he and Laboy had participated in Del Rosario's initial interview, and that Laboy was the one who had requested consent to open the suitcase. Moreover, the agent who had prepared the original record explained that his statement was based on a faulty assumption. -21- appellate review is whether the evidence presented at the suppression hearing fairly supports this finding. Id. The answer here is unequivocally in the affirmative. To be sure, Del Rosario marshals other facts in support of his coercion argument. But these facts derive from his own uncorroborated testimony at the suppression hearing. The district court declined to credit that testimony, and Laboy's testimony, unimpeached on cross-examination, suggests that Del Rosario answered yes when asked for a simple yes or no answer as to whether he would consent to an opening of the bag. Given the district court's express adoption of Laboy's testimony and its equally explicit rejection of Del Rosario's account, we discern no clear error in the determination that the necessary consent was elicited voluntarily. See id. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, a supportable finding of consent eliminates the need for either a search warrant or probable cause. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973); United States v. Woodrum, 202 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2000). Given the bulletproof determination that Del Rosario voluntarily consented to the search, the district court's legal ruling that the evidence was not obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is unimpugnable. -22-