Opinion ID: 203974
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Factual error

Text: The core of the government's argument on appeal is that the district court clearly erred in concluding that the government did not establish that the agents were not prompted to seek the November 16 search warrant by information acquired during the unlawful protective sweep. The government makes two related arguments to this end. First, it argues that the district court clearly erred in stating that the agents testified that it was the combination of Siciliano's statements and the items observed during the protective sweep that led them to seek the search warrant. According to the government, the agents testified only that these factors led them to freeze the apartment. Second, the government argues that the record does not support the contention that the gel capsules and powder observed during the protective sweep were pivotal to the agents' decision to seek the search warrant. In support of this claim, the government points out that Siciliano's demeanor and evasive answers to questions during the interview would have made it unlikely, in the agents' minds, that the chemicals were purchased for a lawful purpose. Moreover, there would have been little reason for the agents to wait to seek a warrant, since after the interview Siciliano knew he was being investigated, and would have stopped criminal activity and might have destroyed evidence.
As we have previously explained, officers freeze a property because they intend to seek a warrant and wish to preserve evidence. Dessesaure, 429 F.3d at 363. For this reason, testimony as to why officers froze a property may also reveal why they sought a search warrant. Here, Agent Roberto testified that what led to the premises being frozen was [p]art ... the interview and part what was observed during the protective sweep. Agent DiTulio testified that what led to us freezing the apartment was a series of factors, namely, the conflicting statements, along with what we saw during the protective sweep. The factors cited are plainly relevant to a decision to seek a warrant. They would suggest, to a reasonable officer, the presence of criminal activity. Moreover, the agents' testimony on this point does not necessarily imply that they would have sought the search warrant if the protective sweep had not occurred. Agent Roberto's testimony that what led to the freezing was [p]art ... the interview and part what was observed might have meant that the interview and the protective sweep were each sufficient to prompt him to seek the warrantin other words, that he sought the warrant for two independent reasons. However, Agent Roberto also might have meant that the combination of the interview and the protective sweep prompted him to seek the warrant, such that he would not have sought the warrant if either condition were absent. It was the government's burden to rule out the second interpretation. For reasons we explain below, it was not clear error for the district court to choose that interpretation.
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.