Opinion ID: 6497989
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A Voluntary Act

Text: At the suppression hearings, the parties presented opposing testimony on the issue of voluntariness. Sierra-Ayala testified that Sergeant López-Maysonet observed the contents of the bag only because he ordered Sierra-Ayala to turn the bag over. Sierra-Ayala argued then, and argues again on appeal, that Sergeant López-Maysonet's coercive inspection of the bag was a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, to which Sierra-Ayala did not consent. See Royer, 460 U.S. at 497 ([W]ithout a warrant to search Royer's luggage and in the absence of probable cause and exigent circumstances, the validity of the search depended on Royer's purported consent.). The government, on the other hand, argues that Sierra-Ayala voluntarily showed Sergeant LópezMaysonet the contents of the bag, such that López-Maysonet's observation of the bag's contents was not an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment. Where the government defends the validity of a search based on an individual's consent, the government has the burden of proving that the necessary consent was obtained and that it was - 25 - freely and voluntarily given, a burden that is not satisfied by showing a mere submission to a claim of lawful authority. Royer, 460 U.S. at 497. Sergeant López-Maysonet testified that SierraAyala freely and voluntarily showed him the bag, without any prompting. After hearing Sierra-Ayala's competing testimony, the magistrate judge made the factual finding that Sierra-Ayala voluntarily displayed the bag's contents to Sergeant LópezMaysonet. The Report and Recommendation identified several factors supporting the magistrate judge's determination that López-Maysonet's testimony on this point was credible.12 The district court adopted this factual finding in a written order, after a de novo suppression hearing and subsequent status conference that addressed the voluntariness issue. Although appellant offers several arguments for why the lower court's credibility assessment of the competing testimony on voluntariness was wrong,13 he does not identify objective evidence 12 These factors include López-Maysonet's tone and demeanor and the logic and plausibility of his version of the events, as compared to the inconsistencies and implausibilities of SierraAyala's version of events. The magistrate judge specifically found implausible Sierra-Ayala's testimony regarding the prices of the goods he sought to purchase and the story . . . that he was literally caught holding the bag. 13Specifically, Sierra-Ayala argues that the district court overlooked the generally implausible nature of Sergeant LópezMaysonet's testimony, the nonsensical logic of Sierra-Ayala's supposedly voluntary action, Sergeant López-Maysonet's evasiveness during testimony, and Sergeant López-Maysonet's disciplinary history. - 26 - that contradicts [Sergeant López-Maysonet's] story. GuzmánBatista, 783 F.3d at 937. Nor was Sergeant López-Maysonet's testimony so internally inconsistent or implausible that no reasonable factfinder would credit it. Id. Because appellant's evidentiary arguments do not leave us with a definite and firm conviction that the district court erred in crediting Sergeant López-Maysonet's testimony, Jones, 187 F.3d at 214 (quoting Rostoff, 164 F.3d at 71), the district court did not clearly err in concluding that Sierra-Ayala displayed the drugs to Sergeant López-Maysonet without prompting from the sergeant. See United States v. Casellas-Toro, 807 F.3d 380, 390 (1st Cir. 2015) (noting that the voluntariness of a consent search is a factual determination for the district court); accord United States v. Coraine, 198 F.3d 306, 308 (1st. Cir. 1999). Upon observing the drugs in the bag due to this voluntary act, Sergeant López-Maysonet acquired probable cause to arrest Sierra-Ayala and to conduct a search of him incident to arrest. Ordinarily, this conclusion would end our inquiry and warrant affirmance of the district court's order denying SierraAyala's motion to suppress. But because appellant also argues that his voluntary act is inextricably linked to the initial unconstitutional seizure that precipitated his display of the bag, we next address whether suppression is warranted under the fruitof-the-poisonous-tree doctrine. - 27 -