United States v. Juan Hernandez , 408 F. App'x 51 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50461
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:08-cr-01354-PSG-2
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JUAN CARLOS HERNANDEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 9, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: NOONAN, BERZON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Juan Carlos Hernandez appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to
suppress evidence. Hernandez argues that his inculpatory statements should be
suppressed because those statements were the product of his illegal detention. For
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
reasons below, we conclude that even if Hernandez’s detention were illegal an
intervening event attenuated the taint of that illegality. We therefore affirm.
We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress evidence and the
underlying findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Song Ja Cha, 597 F.3d
995, 999 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. Jennen, 596 F.3d 594, 597-98 (9th Cir.
2010). We also review de novo whether probable cause existed to arrest a
defendant. United States v. Lopez, 482 F.3d 1067, 1071 (9th Cir. 2007). We
further review de novo whether the exclusionary rule applies in a given case.
United States v. Quoc Viet Hoang, 486 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 2007).
We assume without deciding that Hernandez’s detention was illegal until the
time his co-defendant, Pedro Ismael Soltero, incriminated him. Thus, the
admissibility of Hernandez’s inculpatory statements depends on whether those
statements were “‘come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means
sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’” Wong Sun v.
United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 (1963) (citation omitted). Brown v. Illinois, 422
U.S. 590 (1975), sets forth factors for making this determination: (1) as a threshold
requirement, “[t]he voluntariness of the statement”; (2) the existence of Miranda
warnings; (3) “[t]he temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession”; (4) “the
presence of intervening circumstances”; and (5) “particularly, the purpose and
2
flagrancy of the official misconduct.” Id. at 603-04. See also United States v.
Manuel, 706 F.2d 908, 912 (9th Cir. 1983). We take up each of these factors in
turn.
The first Brown factor weighs against suppression because we have no
indication that Hernandez’s statements were involuntary. Hernandez made his
statements after receiving Miranda warnings and without any apparent direct
coercion.
For similar reasons, the second Brown factor also weighs against
suppression because Hernandez twice received Miranda warnings.
The third Brown factor, by contrast, favors Hernandez because the
supposedly illegal arrest was in fairly close temporal proximity to his inculpatory
statements. Police detained Hernandez seven hours before he made his statements.
See Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687, 690-91 (1982). Police interviewed Soltero
shortly before interviewing Hernandez.
The fourth factor, importantly, weighs against suppression because the
police interviewed Hernandez as a result of Soltero’s incriminating statements and
those statements were independent of any illegality. The police questioned Soltero
after completing their search of the Summershade residence and the record does
3
not suggest that the questioning was in any way connected to Hernandez’s
detention. Police then interrogated Hernandez after Soltero had incriminated him.
Lastly, the fifth factor weighs against suppression because any police
misconduct here was not flagrant. The police detained Hernandez to determine his
connection to the residence being searched, not to extract a confession from him.
Although Hernandez’s detention lasted approximately seven hours, he was
permitted to the use the bathroom when needed, and he was given water when
requested.
On balance, we conclude that the factors above militate in favor of not
suppressing the evidence here. In particular, the intervening event of Soltero’s
incriminating statements and the lack of flagrant police misconduct outweigh any
temporal proximity between Hernandez’s supposedly illegal detention and his own
statements.
AFFIRMED.
4