United States v. Gonzalez ( 2021 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 19-1461
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
RUBEN GONZALEZ, a/k/a CARLOS ARNALDO DELGADO TORRES, a/k/a
RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a LUIS COLON, a/k/a JORGE RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Lipez, and Barron,
Circuit Judges.
Lenore Glaser for appellant.
Mark T. Quinlivan, Assistant United States Attorney, with
whom Andrew E. Lelling, United States Attorney, was on brief, for
appellee.
October 20, 2021
LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Appellant Ruben Gonzalez was
charged with three drug trafficking offenses after law enforcement
officers discovered cocaine and heroin inside his vehicle.
Gonzalez moved to suppress the drugs as the fruits of an unlawful
seizure. After a three-day evidentiary hearing, a magistrate judge
recommended that Gonzalez's motion be denied. The district court
judge adopted that recommendation. In November 2018, a jury
convicted Gonzalez on all counts. Gonzalez appeals, arguing only
that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress.
We affirm the district court, but on a different ground apparent
from the record. See Saccoccia v. United States, 955 F.3d 171,
172 (1st Cir. 2020) ("[W]e are free to affirm on any grounds made
manifest by the record . . . .").
I.
When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we
recite "the facts as . . . found by the court below, including any
inferences drawn by the court from the discerned facts." United
States v. Crooker, 688 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2012). Here, we recount
the facts as found by the magistrate judge and adopted by the
district court.
A. The Investigation
In June 2013, federal agents with the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ("ATF") and the Drug Enforcement
Administration ("DEA") were investigating the alleged drug
- 2 -
trafficking and money laundering activities of several individuals
in and around Boston. Agents used physical surveillance, GPS
tracking, and cell phone communications intercepted from one of
the targets of the investigation, Roberto Mejia. Agents suspected
that Mejia was the leader of a major drug distribution organization
in Boston that was supplied by his brother, Enrique Mejia
("Clasico"), who lived in Sinaloa, Mexico.
In October 2013, agents observed Mejia and his female
companion purchase a Chrysler Sebring. Mejia paid for the vehicle
in cash, but the car was registered in his companion's name. A
few days later, Mejia dropped off the car at an auto-body shop in
Lawrence, Massachusetts, where, based on intercepted
communications, officers believe he had arranged for the
installation of a "hide" (a hidden compartment that is typically
used to conceal drugs and other contraband for transport). After
Mejia picked up the vehicle, he drove it to a residence at 32 Shaw
Street in West Roxbury, Massachusetts. There was also a Nissan
Versa, owned by Mejia, often parked at 32 Shaw Street.1 Based on
utility information obtained via administrative subpoena and
physical surveillance, agents suspected that 32 Shaw Street was a
stash house used by Mejia to store narcotics and other contraband.
1Court-approved tracking devices were affixed to both the
Sebring and the Versa.
- 3 -
B. Interactions Between Mejia and Gonzalez
From November 20 to November 26, 2013, agents
intercepted several phone calls between Mejia and a number later
discovered to belong to Gonzalez.2 Agents initially labeled the
unknown caller as "UM-9271"3 and did not learn that UM-9271 was
Gonzalez until after he was arrested on November 26, 2013.
During the calls, Mejia and Gonzalez discussed the
location, timing, and other aspects of an upcoming shipment of
narcotics to New York City, using coded language.4 Gonzalez also
disclosed during those calls that, on several occasions, he had
been in direct communication with the Mexican supplier, Clasico.
For example, on November 21, 2013, agents intercepted a call
between Mejia and Gonzalez during which Gonzalez relayed a message
from Clasico warning Mejia that when he went to retrieve the
2 Appellant's given name is Edwin Radeymi Soto Castillo, but
he has apparently been using the name Ruben Gonzalez in the United
States for at least 17 years. We will refer to appellant as Ruben
Gonzalez. That is the name from his conviction papers, and he
used that name in his brief to this court.
3 UM stands for "unidentified male" and 9271 represents the
last four digits of Gonzalez's phone number.
4 For example, ATF Special Agent John Hayes testified that,
based on his experience in narcotics trafficking, when Mejia and
Gonzalez referred to the "political party" or the "campaign" in
their conversations, they were discussing their drug distribution
network; references to the "white party" meant cocaine; and any
discussions about "Alex Rodriguez," who played for the New York
Yankees at the time, meant that the relevant shipment was going to
be transported to New York City.
- 4 -
shipment from New York, he "should not trust anybody. . . . [And]
[t]o check and go around a few times before," which agents
understood to mean that Mejia should conduct countersurveillance
to ensure he was not being followed.5 Gonzalez also encouraged
Mejia, saying, "I know we . . . have to struggle a little bit at
first, but when the 'political party' gets going and stuff, we are
going to be first in all this area." In another call a few days
later, Gonzalez told Mejia that he had spoken to Clasico again and
asked Mejia to give to Gonzalez "everything [he could] throw to
[him] . . . . The most product you can, you give out what you're
going to give out." Mejia responded, "Yes, as soon as it arrives
I'll call you, alright."
On November 25th, agents intercepted a call between
Gonzalez and Mejia in which the pair discussed Mejia "getting ready
. . . to do the deal." That evening, and into the early morning
hours of November 26th, GPS location data revealed that Mejia drove
the Sebring to the Bronx, then to a location in New Jersey, and
finally back to Massachusetts. At approximately 8:00 a.m., agents
observed Mejia arrive in the Sebring at 32 Shaw Street, park, and
The magistrate judge attributed these statements to Mejia
5
in the Report and Recommendation, but that appears to be an error.
The transcript of the suppression hearing reveals that it was
Gonzalez, not Mejia, who conveyed the warning not to trust anyone
and to engage in countersurveillance. The confusion likely stems
from the fact that Gonzalez was conveying to Roberto Mejia a
warning that came from Mejia's brother, Enrique Mejia (Clasico).
- 5 -
enter the residence. The Sebring was eventually moved into the
garage, which was attached to the residence. Agents did not
observe Mejia carrying any packages, but twenty minutes after he
arrived, agents intercepted a call with a number believed to belong
to Clasico, in which Mejia reported "[e]verything is here now,"
and confirmed that he had "grabbed 14 and . . . count[ed] them
well."6
Later that day, agents intercepted a series of calls
between Mejia and Gonzalez about meeting at an outdoor shopping
mall in Dedham, Massachusetts, called "Legacy Place." Gonzalez
and Mejia planned to arrive at Legacy Place in two separate cars.
They agreed that after spending time walking around the mall, they
would leave together in one vehicle. At around 4:00 p.m., Mejia
left 32 Shaw Street in his Versa. While on his way, Mejia told
Gonzalez that he would be late because he had to make "fuin fuan,"
which agents took to mean countersurveillance. He apologized to
Gonzalez, explaining, "I'm sorry but I have to do it like this. I
was on my way but I'm checking if someone is behind. We have to
check, you know." A surveillance team followed and observed him
making several stops. Mejia arrived at Legacy Place in his Versa
about twenty minutes after Gonzalez had arrived in a Toyota Sienna.
6 Officers ultimately recovered approximately fourteen
kilograms of cocaine from Mejia and Gonzalez.
- 6 -
Mejia and Gonzalez walked around Legacy Place for about
thirty minutes. Agents observed them entering and exiting stores,
at least one restaurant, and bathrooms, and concluded that they
were conducting countersurveillance. Eventually, Gonzalez and
Mejia got into Gonzalez's Sienna and drove off, leaving Mejia's
Versa in the parking lot. Although officers followed the Sienna,
they lost the vehicle shortly after it left the mall. While the
agents were waiting for Gonzalez and Mejia to return to 32 Shaw
Street, nine or ten law enforcement vehicles assembled in the
area.7 Also during that interim, agents sought and obtained search
warrants for 32 Shaw Street and Mejia's Sebring from a magistrate
judge.
C. The Vehicle Containment
At approximately 11:00 p.m., officers observed the
Sienna arrive back at 32 Shaw Street. Mejia and Gonzalez exited
the vehicle and went inside. About thirty minutes later, Mejia
and Gonzalez emerged from the residence and got back into
Gonzalez's Sienna, with Gonzalez driving and Mejia riding in the
front passenger seat. It was dark outside, and "there was no
indication that officers saw either Mejia or [Gonzalez] carrying
a package."
7ATF and DEA agents, as well as state and local police
officers, were present. We refer to the members of the agencies
involved collectively as "agents," "officers," or "law
enforcement."
- 7 -
Special Agent James Connolly determined that the safest
way to execute the search warrant for the residence was first to
conduct a "vehicle containment" of Gonzalez's Sienna and detain
Gonzalez and Mejia.8 Hence, agents blocked the Sienna's path with
the intent to force Gonzalez to stop the vehicle so that he and
Mejia could be detained while the search warrants were executed.
When the front bumpers of Connolly's vehicle and the Sienna
touched, the Sienna came to a stop. As Connolly and his team of
agents approached the Sienna on foot, Gonzalez accelerated the car
in reverse, striking another police vehicle that was positioned
behind the Sienna and travelling about 30 yards before crashing
into a civilian vehicle and coming to a stop.
Mejia was taken into custody without incident.
Gonzalez, on the other hand, did not cooperate and was forcibly
removed from the vehicle. Once outside the vehicle, Gonzalez
continued to resist the officers' attempts to restrain him by,
among other things, sitting on his hands. Agents were eventually
able to handcuff Gonzalez, but he suffered moderate injuries as a
result (e.g., bruising on his face).
8 Agent Connolly testified that he "just didn't feel it would
be safe to go [inside]" 32 Shaw Street because he did not know how
many individuals were in the home or whether they had any weapons,
and "gain[ing] entrance by force . . . would have given [Mejia and
Gonzalez] a heads-up to indicate that [officers] were outside
trying to gain entrance."
- 8 -
After both Mejia and Gonzalez were placed in handcuffs
and detained, an agent went to the driver's side of the Sienna and
shifted the gear into "park." Officers testified that they also
opened the vehicle's rear sliding door to clear the vehicle of any
possible additional occupants. Upon opening the door, officers
observed in plain view a black plastic bag containing a "brick-
like substance" on the floor behind the front passenger seat.
Boston Police conducted a crime scene investigation and, based on
field testing, concluded that the black plastic bag contained
cocaine and heroin.
After the vehicle was swept, the search warrants for 32
Shaw Street and Mejia's Sebring were executed at approximately
11:35 p.m.9 Agents recovered a large black bag in the front bedroom
closet of 32 Shaw Street that contained approximately thirteen
kilograms of cocaine and a bag of heroin. Agents also discovered
packaging equipment, including a digital scale, shrink wrap, a can
of grease, and a roll of tape.
9 The search warrants initially expired at 10:00 p.m., but
the agents received a court-approved extension of time given the
late hour that Mejia and Gonzalez arrived back at 32 Shaw Street.
- 9 -
D. Procedural Background
In a superseding indictment issued in September 2014,
Gonzalez and two others10 were charged with conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin and 500 grams
or more of cocaine for the drugs recovered both from 32 Shaw Street
and Gonzalez's Sienna. Gonzalez was also charged with possession
with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin and
possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine
for the drugs found in his Sienna.
Gonzalez moved to suppress the heroin and cocaine seized
from his Sienna.11 He argued that officers stopped his vehicle
The two other defendants were Mejia and one of Mejia's
10
customers (Eric Rivera-Sanchez). Both pled guilty and neither is
a party to this appeal.
Gonzalez did not seek to suppress the drugs found inside
11
32 Shaw Street (presumably because he did not live there, and the
drugs were recovered pursuant to a properly executed search
warrant). Those drugs are relevant to the conspiracy charge (as
are the drugs found in the Sienna), but not the possession charges.
The government recognizes that if we were to conclude that the
drugs from the Sienna should have been suppressed, we would need
to vacate Gonzalez's possession convictions. As to his conspiracy
conviction, however, the government argues that, even without the
drugs found in the Sienna, there is overwhelming evidence in the
record that Gonzalez conspired with Mejia to possess and distribute
the drugs found inside 32 Shaw Street and, thus, any error in
admitting the drugs found in the Sienna would be harmless as to
the conspiracy conviction. Gonzalez asks us to vacate the entirety
of the jury verdict without addressing the government's harmless
error argument. However, because we conclude that the district
court properly denied the suppression motion, we need not consider
the government's alternative argument for affirmance of the
conspiracy conviction.
- 10 -
without reasonable suspicion in violation of the Fourth Amendment,
and, thus, the cocaine and heroin found inside the vehicle were
inadmissible. In response, the government argued that (1) the
officers not only had reasonable suspicion, but also probable cause
to arrest Gonzalez when they stopped and searched his vehicle;
(2) Gonzalez was not seized until he submitted to the officers'
show of authority after being forcibly removed from his vehicle
and handcuffed; and (3) even if the initial stop was unlawful,
Gonzalez's attempted flight constituted a new crime that removed
any evidentiary taint. At the request of the district court judge,
a magistrate judge conducted a three-day evidentiary hearing on
the motion and thereafter submitted a Report and Recommendation
("R&R") detailing her findings.12
E. The Report and Recommendation
The magistrate judge concluded that (1) the agents
reasonably suspected that Mejia and Gonzalez had engaged in a drug
transaction and that evidence of that transaction would be found
in the Sienna, thereby justifying an investigatory stop of the
vehicle; (2) Gonzalez was not seized until he was handcuffed
because, until then, he had not submitted to the officers' show of
12 After the first day of the hearing, Gonzalez moved to
withdraw his motion to suppress and sought to plead guilty.
Shortly thereafter, Gonzalez's counsel withdrew and new counsel
was appointed. The district court judge again referred the motion
to suppress to the magistrate judge, who reconvened a hearing on
the motion.
- 11 -
authority; (3) Gonzalez's seizure was lawful because his flight
escalated the officers' existing reasonable suspicion to probable
cause; and (4) the officers had probable cause to search the
Sienna.
Gonzalez objected to each of the magistrate judge's
findings. The district court overruled his objections but
disagreed with the magistrate judge's analysis on two issues.
First, the district court concluded that the moment that Gonzalez
was "seized" was a "false issue" because the case involved two
seizures -- one when the Sienna was stopped and one when Gonzalez
was arrested -- both of which occurred after the necessary
conditions (reasonable suspicion and probable cause, respectively)
were satisfied. Second, the court ruled that there was no need to
reach the question of whether the officers had probable cause to
search the Sienna because "the contraband was found in plain view
in the course of the officers' protective sweep of the van" after
Gonzalez's lawful arrest. With those clarifications, the district
judge adopted the R&R and denied Gonzalez's motion to suppress. A
jury subsequently convicted Gonzalez on all three counts following
a six-day trial. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 84 months
of imprisonment and four years of supervised release.
II.
In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we
examine a district court's factual findings for clear error and
- 12 -
its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Soto-Peguero, 978
F.3d 13, 20 (1st Cir. 2020). In this case, however, the facts are
essentially undisputed, so we focus on the legal significance of
those facts in reviewing the decision of the district court. In
doing so, we construe the record in the light most favorable to
the district court's ruling and "will affirm the court's denial of
a suppression motion 'as long as that denial is supported by any
particularized and objectively reasonable view of the evidence.'"
United States v. Adams, 971 F.3d 22, 31 (1st Cir. 2020) (quoting
United States v. Tanguay, 811 F.3d 78, 81 (1st Cir 2016)).
A. Classifying the Vehicle Containment under the Fourth Amendment
Agent Connolly's direct application of force to the
Sienna during the vehicle containment, which eventually caused the
vehicle to stop, constituted a seizure of Gonzalez's person. See
Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 597 (1989) ("If . . . the
police cruiser had pulled alongside the fleeing car and sideswiped
it, producing the crash, then the termination of the suspect's
freedom of movement would have been a seizure."); see also United
States v. Woodrum, 202 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2000) (stating that
"[i]t is doctrinal bedrock that a police stop of a moving vehicle
constitutes a seizure of the vehicle's occupants"). Hence,
Gonzalez was seized when the front bumper of Agent Connolly's
vehicle met the front bumper of the Sienna driven by Gonzalez and
- 13 -
caused it to stop. The parties agree on that much. They disagree,
however, on how we should classify that seizure.
Not all seizures of a person amount to an arrest as
contemplated by the Fourth Amendment. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S.
1, 26-27 (1968). Encounters between the police and citizens that
are "sufficiently limited in their intrusiveness . . . fall outside
the traditional understanding of an 'arrest,'" United States v.
Acosta-Colon, 157 F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir. 1998), but still within the
Fourth Amendment's protective ambit, United States v. Tiru-Plaza,
766 F.3d 111, 115 (1st Cir. 2014). Such temporary detentions, "by
virtue of their low level of intrusiveness relative to the
important law enforcement purposes they serve[]," id. (citing
Terry, 392 U.S. at 27), can be constitutionally justified by mere
"reasonable suspicion that criminal activity [is] afoot," United
States v. Rasberry, 882 F.3d 241, 246 (1st Cir. 2018) (quoting
United States v. Pontoo, 666 F.3d 20, 27 (1st Cir. 2011)). If an
officer's actions during the encounter become "too intrusive," the
temporary detention may "morph into a de facto arrest," which must
be supported by probable cause. Id. at 247.
This case involves a seizure that is "distinguishable
from, yet has some features normally associated with, an arrest."
Acosta-Colon, 157 F.3d at 15. On the one hand, at the time of the
vehicle containment, Gonzalez was not handcuffed, was not subdued,
and was in a public place -- factors suggesting that Gonzalez was
- 14 -
not under arrest. See United States v. Lee, 317 F.3d 26, 31 (1st
Cir. 2003). On the other hand, nine or ten law enforcement
vehicles were present, emergency lights were activated, weapons
were drawn, and Agent Connolly used physical force to stop Gonzalez
in his vehicle -- factors suggesting that Gonzalez was arrested at
the time of the vehicle containment. See United States v. Taylor,
162 F.3d 12, 21-22 (1st Cir. 1998).
The line between a temporary detention and de facto
arrest is elusive and not easily defined. See, e.g., United States
v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 685 (1985). However, we need not classify
the vehicle containment in this case. We will assume arguendo
that the vehicle containment resulted in Gonzalez's de facto arrest
-- the approach more favorable to Gonzalez -- and assess whether
Gonzalez's arrest was supported by probable cause.13
13We have taken a similar approach in other cases. See United
States v. Dapolito, 713 F.3d 141, 153 n.12 (1st Cir. 2013) ("On
these facts, the question also arises as to whether, at that time,
this was a de facto arrest. It is a question the district court
did not address, nor do we. We do note that, if it was an arrest,
we think it clear that there was no probable cause for an arrest,
there not being even reasonable suspicion."); United States v.
Mann, No. 99-1965, 2000 WL 739722, *2 (1st Cir. June 2, 2000)
(unpublished table decision) ("Mann contends that when the police
surrounded his car and approached him, he was under de facto
arrest . . . . [and] that the police did not have the requisite
probable cause . . . . [W]e will assume arguendo that Mann was
under arrest and determine whether the police had the requisite
probable cause to make such an arrest.").
- 15 -
B. Probable Cause to Arrest Gonzalez
Probable cause "is not a high bar." Kaley v. United
States, 571 U.S. 320, 338 (2014). Probable cause to arrest an
individual "will be found if 'the facts and circumstances within
[the officer's] knowledge and of which [the officer] had reasonably
trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent
[person] in believing that the [defendant] had committed or was
committing an offense.'" Alexis v. McDonald's Rests. of Mass.,
Inc., 67 F.3d 341, 349 (1st Cir. 1995) (quoting Rivera v. Murphy,
979 F.2d 259, 263 (1st Cir. 1992)). Probable cause "demands only
'the kind of "fair probability" on which "reasonable and prudent
[people,] not legal technicians, act."'" Adams, 971 F.3d at 32
(quoting Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 244 (2013)) (alteration
in original). It "may be premised on either direct or
circumstantial evidence or some combination of the two," and may
rely on the "connecting of a series of dots in a commonsense way"
with "ample room for reasonable inferences based on common
experience." Id. "Direct evidence is not necessary to ground a
probable cause determination where . . . the import of
circumstantial evidence is obvious." Id. at 33.
At the time of the vehicle containment, the officers,
through GPS tracking, physical surveillance, and intercepted
communications, developed substantial circumstantial evidence that
Gonzalez was in the midst of a drug transaction with Mejia.
- 16 -
Officers knew that Mejia purchased the Sebring with cash,
registered it in his girlfriend's name and, based on intercepted
communications, arranged for the installation of a hide in the
vehicle. They knew Mejia was involved in assisting his brother,
Clasico, in the transport of drugs from Mexico to Massachusetts.
Through a series of intercepted phone calls over the course of
several days, officers heard Mejia discuss with UM-9271 the details
of an upcoming shipment of drugs to New York City. In those phone
calls, officers heard UM-9271 ask Mejia to give him "the most
product" he could. Officers also listened to UM-9271 relay
messages to Mejia from Clasico, demonstrating that UM-9271 was in
direct communication with the Mexican supplier.
On the evening of November 25th into the early morning
hours of November 26th, GPS tracking revealed that Mejia traveled
to New York in his Sebring, as agents suspected he would, to
retrieve the shipment that he had previously discussed with
UM-9271. He returned to the location that officers suspected was
a stash house (32 Shaw Street) and parked the Sebring in the
garage. Upon his arrival at 32 Shaw Street, officers intercepted
a phone call in which Mejia told Clasico that "[e]verything is
here now," and confirmed that he had "grabbed 14 and . . . count[ed]
them well."
Later that day, Mejia notified UM-9271 that the shipment
had arrived, as he promised he would, and the pair devised a plan
- 17 -
to meet in a manner that they hoped would avoid detection by law
enforcement. Officers later observed Mejia and UM-9271 meet at
Legacy Place, consistent with their plans to do so, and, after a
short period of time, leave together in the Sienna. That evening,
officers observed the same two individuals -- Mejia and
UM-9271 -- arrive at 32 Shaw Street in the Sienna. Officers
observed the pair enter the residence and, approximately thirty
minutes later, exit the residence and get back into the Sienna.
Moments later, the officers executed the vehicle containment and
Mejia and UM-9271 were taken into custody.
Based on the evidence possessed by law enforcement at
the time they executed the vehicle containment, a "reasonable and
prudent" person would have concluded that there was a "fair
probability," id. at 32, that (1) Mejia used the hide in the
Sebring to retrieve and transport a narcotics shipment from New
York to Massachusetts on the evening of November 25, 2013;
(2) Mejia stored those narcotics at 32 Shaw Street; (3) over the
course of several intercepted phone calls, UM-9271 arranged to
purchase, or take possession of with intent to sell himself, a
portion of the drug shipment that Mejia was storing at 32 Shaw
Street; (4) UM-9271 and Mejia devised a plan to meet at Legacy
Place and take one car back to 32 Shaw Street where they would
engage in the drug transaction; (5) UM-9271 and Mejia executed
that plan, engaging in countersurveillance along the way;
- 18 -
(6) UM-9271 secured drugs from Mejia while inside 32 Shaw Street
on the evening of November 26th; and (7) UM-9271 was the same
individual who met Mejia at Legacy Place, drove with him in the
Sienna to 32 Shaw Street, and was driving the Sienna when it later
left the residence and was stopped by officers. The totality of
the described circumstances leaves no doubt that the officers "had
reasonably trustworthy information" sufficient for a prudent
person to believe, see Alexis, 67 F.3d at 349, that the driver of
the Sienna -- Gonzalez -- was UM-9271 and that he and Mejia had
either just completed or were still in the midst of a drug
transaction when officers conducted the vehicle containment.
Hence, assuming the vehicle containment resulted in Gonzalez's de
facto arrest, it was amply supported by probable cause.
C. Other Issues
Gonzalez's claim of constitutional error in this case is
limited to the officers' conduct in executing the vehicle
containment. He argues that the containment was an unlawful arrest
and, therefore, the ensuing events -- his subsequent attempt to
flee, his eventual detention, and the resulting protective sweep
of the Sienna that resulted in the discovery of cocaine and heroin
in plain view -- were fruits of the poisonous tree. Because we
conclude that the officers had probable cause to arrest Gonzalez
when they conducted the vehicle containment -- again assuming that
the vehicle containment resulted in Gonzalez's de facto
- 19 -
arrest -- we necessarily reject Gonzalez's fruit of the poisonous
tree arguments.
Affirmed.
- 20 -