Court Opinion

ID: 9369837
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-09 19:00:28.142061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:17.561295
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50505        Document: 00516640140             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/09/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-50505
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                    ____________                               February 9, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                         Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Maria Torres de Lopez,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:21-CR-1385-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Maria Torres de Lopez was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to harbor
   aliens and sentenced to six months of imprisonment. On appeal, Torres de
   Lopez argues that the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress
   all evidence obtained following a warrantless search of her home. Border

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50505       Document: 00516640140         Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/09/2023

                                    No. 22-50505

   Patrol agents approached Torres de Lopez’s home after receiving a tip from
   a confidential informant that illegal immigrants were being housed there.
          Torres de Lopez argues that the agents lacked a warrant and probable
   cause to search her home, rendering the information gathered during the
   search, seizure, and interview illegal under the Fourth Amendment. We
   uphold a district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress “if there is any
   reasonable view of the evidence to support it.” United States v. Michelletti, 13
   F.3d 838, 841 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). Torres de Lopez also argues that
   “the use of an unnamed cooperating witness, who was unavailable for cross-
   examination” at trial, violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth
   Amendment. This court reviews preserved Confrontation Clause claims de
   novo, subject to a harmless error analysis. United States v. Noria, 945 F.3d
   847, 853 (5th Cir. 2019). Torres de Lopez preserved her claim by raising this
   objection at trial.
          “Federal courts have recognized the ‘knock and talk’ strategy as a
   reasonable investigative tool when officers seek to gain an occupant’s consent
   to search or when officers reasonably suspect criminal activity.” United
   States v. Jones, 239 F.3d 716, 720 (5th Cir. 2001). A person is seized for
   Fourth Amendment purposes “only if, in view of all of the circumstances
   surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he
   was not free to leave.” United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980).
   While the officers initiated a knock and talk encounter with Torres de Lopez,
   there is no evidence that a seizure occurred. Because Torres de Lopez was
   not seized, her Fourth Amendment rights were not implicated, and the
   officers did not have to articulate reasonable suspicion or probable cause. See
   United States v. Valdiosera-Godinez, 932 F.2d 1093, 1099 (5th Cir. 1991).
   While the officers did not enter or search Torres de Lopez’s home initially,
   they did eventually search the home for the passport of one of the subjects.
   However, the agents asked for permission to do so, and Torres de Lopez

                                          2
Case: 22-50505       Document: 00516640140         Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/09/2023

                                    No. 22-50505

   consented. Torres de Lopez does not argue that her consent was in any way
   coerced. Consequently, Torres de Lopez’s consent to search her residence
   for the passport was not tainted or invalid, and the district court did not err
   when it denied her motion to suppress. See Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554.
          The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment provides that
   “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be
   confronted with the witnesses against him.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. The
   Supreme Court has held that the Confrontation Clause bars the admission of
   “testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was
   unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for
   cross-examination.” Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54 (2004).
   Law enforcement officers may testify to tips from a confidential informant to
   “provide context for their investigation or explain background facts,”
   provided the “out-of-court statements are not offered for the truth of the
   matter asserted therein, but instead for another purpose: to explain the
   officer’s actions.” United States v. Kizzee, 877 F.3d 650, 659 (5th Cir. 2017)
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, the agents did not
   testify that the confidential informant said that Torres de Lopez was housing
   or was involved in housing illegal immigrants. They did not testify about the
   confidential informant saying anything about Torres de Lopez. Instead, they
   testified that they received information that illegal aliens were being housed
   at a certain location. This was not an accusation but a background fact about
   their investigation; therefore, the testimony did not violate the Confrontation
   Clause. See id.
          The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                          3