Opinion ID: 155002
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: Mr. Mendez initially filed a motion to suppress, contending that the government had violated his Fourth Amendment rights when it conducted a warrantless search of his home with a thermal imager. The district court denied the motion and Mr. Mendez then pled guilty. After several extensions, sentencing was finally scheduled for November 14, 1995. Before sentencing, Mr. Mendez moved to withdraw his guilty plea on the basis of a Tenth Circuit decision filed October 4, 1995, holding that “the warrantless use of a thermal imager upon a home violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.” United States v. Cusumano, 67 F.3d 1497, 1510 (10th Cir. 1995). The district court postponed sentencing and scheduled a status conference for January 18, 1996. In the meantime, the government’s suggestion for rehearing en banc in Cusumano was granted on December 5, 1995, with arguments in March 1996. In May 1996, the en banc court vacated the panel opinion in Cusumano, stating that “[w]e do not decide the constitutionality of the warrantless use of the thermal imager to scan Defendants’ residence because any such decision is unnecessary to a resolution of Defendants’ appeals.” United States v. Cusumano, 83 F.3d 1247, 1250 (10th Cir. 1996) (en banc). On August 21, 1996, the district court denied Mr. Mendez’s motion to withdraw his plea and sentenced him to twelve months in prison. -2-