Court Opinion

ID: 9364644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-19 21:00:29.880696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:39.529682
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4307      Doc: 54         Filed: 01/18/2023     Pg: 1 of 7

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4307

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JOSE AGUIRRE-CUENCA,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:19-cr-00141-FDW-DCK-1)

        Submitted: November 18, 2022                                   Decided: January 18, 2023

        Before AGEE, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Anthony Martinez, Federal Public Defender, Megan C. Hoffman, Assistant
        Federal Public Defender, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH
        CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J. King, United States
        Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
        UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4307      Doc: 54         Filed: 01/18/2023     Pg: 2 of 7

        PER CURIAM:

               Jose Aguirre-Cuenca, convicted of unlawful reentry after deportation and a firearm-

        possession charge, appeals the denial of a suppression motion. We find no clear error in

        the factual findings on which the district court relied to deny Aguirre-Cuenca’s motion.

        And Aguirre-Cuenca’s additional arguments for suppression, brought for the first time on

        appeal, are waived. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

                                                     I.

               At approximately 4:00 a.m. on April 20, 2019, Officer Ryan Tran-Thompson of the

        Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department responded to a report that a car was stopped in

        the road after striking a pole. When Tran-Thompson arrived, defendant Jose Aguirre-

        Cuenca was sitting in the driver’s seat of a sedan parked partly in the roadway. Tran-

        Thompson exited his patrol car and walked toward Aguirre-Cuenca’s vehicle.

               The parties dispute what happened next. According to Officer Tran-Thompson, as

        he approached the car, he saw the defendant reach for the back-seat floorboard, where

        several beers were visible. Tran-Thompson claims that the defendant then voluntarily

        exited his car and walked toward the officer with his hands in his pockets, seemingly

        intoxicated. Aguirre-Cuenca, meanwhile, denies reaching into the back seat, and contends

        that Tran-Thompson ordered him out of the car. Tran-Thompson had not yet activated his

        body camera, so this portion of the encounter was not recorded. The parties agree that

        departmental policy requires officers to activate their body cameras prior to arrival at any

        call for service, and that Tran-Thompson violated this policy.

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4307      Doc: 54        Filed: 01/18/2023     Pg: 3 of 7

              After Aguirre-Cuenca exited the car, Tran-Thompson requested that he remove his

        hands from his pockets. But Aguirre-Cuenca repeatedly placed his hand back in his left

        pants pocket, as though “pushing something down to conceal it.” J.A. 68. At this point,

        Tran-Thompson activated his body camera and conducted a frisk of Aguirre-Cuenca’s left

        pocket. The officer identified a bullet seated in a magazine, at which point he placed

        Aguirre-Cuenca in handcuffs.

              Soon thereafter, two other officers arrived on the scene. Tran-Thompson relayed

        that Aguirre-Cuenca had a magazine in his pocket and several beers in the back seat of his

        car. After observing the open containers, the officers searched the car’s cabin and

        recovered a black handgun wrapped in a shirt.

              Aguirre-Cuenca was then arrested and charged with unlawfully reentering the

        country after deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and possession of a firearm “knowing that

        he was an alien unlawfully and illegally in the United States,” J.A. 10; see 18 U.S.C.

        § 922(g)(5)(A). Aguirre-Cuenca moved to suppress evidence of the firearm, arguing that

        his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when Tran-Thompson ordered him to exit his

        car without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of a crime. He also argued that Tran-

        Thompson’s failure to activate his body camera upon arrival constituted bad-faith

        destruction of evidence warranting suppression or an adverse inference as to Tran-

        Thompson’s credibility. See Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988).

              After a hearing, the magistrate judge credited Tran-Thompson’s testimony that

        Aguirre-Cuenca left his vehicle voluntarily, and so rejected the defendant’s argument that

        all evidence subsequently discovered must be excluded as fruit of an unreasonable seizure.

                                                    3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4307      Doc: 54         Filed: 01/18/2023     Pg: 4 of 7

        And the magistrate judge concluded that Tran-Thompson’s failure to activate his body

        camera, though contrary to departmental policy, did not constitute bad-faith destruction of

        evidence. Again, the magistrate judge credited Tran-Thompson’s testimony, finding that

        the officer was not motivated by any improper desire to withhold exculpatory evidence

        when – approaching what he believed to be no more than the scene of an accident – he did

        not immediately activate his camera. The magistrate judge went on to approve the officers’

        subsequent frisk of Aguirre-Cuenca and search of his vehicle as reasonable under the

        Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended that the district court

        deny the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of the firearm.

               Before the district court, Aguirre-Cuenca objected to the magistrate’s

        recommendation on only two grounds: first, that he had not voluntarily exited his vehicle;

        and second, that Tran-Thompson had acted in bad faith when he failed to activate his

        camera, requiring, at a minimum, that the district court accept the defendant’s account of

        events. The district court reviewed those two objections de novo, affirmed the magistrate

        judge’s determinations, and adopted the recommendation to deny the motion to suppress.

               After a stipulated bench trial, the district court convicted Aguirre-Cuenca on both

        counts. The court sentenced the defendant to time served and a one-year term of supervised

        release. Aguirre-Cuenca appealed on the sole ground that the district court erred in denying

        his motion to suppress.

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4307       Doc: 54         Filed: 01/18/2023      Pg: 5 of 7

                                                      II.

               On appeal, Aguirre-Cuenca reprises his arguments before the magistrate judge and

        district court. He also contends, for the first time, that even assuming he voluntarily left

        his car – so that the encounter did not begin with an unconstitutional seizure – the officers

        subsequently violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they frisked his pocket and

        searched his vehicle without adequate justification. But those issues were not raised in

        Aguirre-Cuenca’s motion to suppress, and the defendant did not object to those portions of

        the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

        59(b)(2), failure to “file specific written objections to the proposed findings and

        recommendations” of a magistrate judge “waives a party’s right to review” of those

        findings. Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2); see United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th

        Cir. 2007) (“[T]o preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must

        object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as

        reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.”).

               Aguirre-Cuenca urges that, despite his waiver, we may review his unpreserved

        claims in the “interest of justice.” See Arakas v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 983 F.3d 83,

        103 (4th Cir. 2020). But this narrow exception is available only in limited circumstances,

        such as “where the proper resolution is beyond any doubt.” Id. at 105 (internal quotation

        marks omitted).     This is not such a case – Aguirre-Cuenca’s unpreserved Fourth

        Amendment claims do not involve the “unquestionably erroneous” application of settled

        law, id. – and the defendant presents no other grounds for forgiving his waiver.

                                                       5
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4307       Doc: 54          Filed: 01/18/2023      Pg: 6 of 7

               That leaves the primary dispute below: whether Tran-Thompson effectuated an

        unlawful seizure when he first arrived on the scene by ordering Aguirre-Cuenca to exit his

        vehicle without reasonable suspicion. But the magistrate judge credited Tran-Thompson’s

        testimony that Aguirre-Cuenca left the car voluntarily, the district court agreed, and the

        defendant offers no reason to reverse that credibility finding as clearly erroneous. See

        United States v. McGee, 736 F.3d 263, 269 (4th Cir. 2013) (“We review the factual findings

        underlying a district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress for clear error . . . .”).

               Similarly, Aguirre-Cuenca gives us no basis to reverse on the ground that Officer

        Tran-Thompson failed to activate his body camera in bad faith.               Under Arizona v.

        Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988), an officer’s “bad faith” failure to preserve potentially

        exculpatory evidence may violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 57–58. We may assume

        – without deciding – that Youngblood also applies to the failure to create exculpatory

        evidence through failure to activate a body camera. The district court found that Tran-

        Thompson failed to activate his body camera not in a bad-faith effort to avoid creating

        potentially exculpatory evidence, but only because he did not believe the scene involved

        criminal activity. And indeed, it is undisputed that Tran-Thompson activated his camera

        as soon as he deemed it necessary to conduct a Terry frisk. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1

        (1968) (permitting frisk to protect officer safety on reasonable suspicion that a suspect is

        armed and dangerous). As the magistrate judge emphasized, compliance with departmental

        policy regarding body-camera activation is “important for the promotion of public trust.”

        J.A. 208. But we see no clear error in the district court’s factual determination that Tran-

        Thompson, notwithstanding his violation of departmental policy, did not act in bad faith.

                                                       6
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4307     Doc: 54         Filed: 01/18/2023     Pg: 7 of 7

                                                   III.

              For the reasons given above, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

                                                                                      AFFIRMED

                                                    7