United States v. Camacho

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
661 F.3d 718 (2011)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Evidence discovered during an unconstitutional search that precedes a suspect's intervening criminal act must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. A subsequent crime committed by the suspect does not purge the taint of the initial illegality if the evidence was discovered prior to the commission of that crime.

Facts:

On January 11, 2008, New Bedford police received 911 calls reporting a street fight involving the Latin Kings gang.
Upon arrival, Sergeant Carola saw 12-15 people scattering and directed Officers Sousa and Conceicao to stop two men he did not recognize, Ángel Camacho and Louis Osario-Meléndez, who were walking away from the scene.
Officers Sousa and Conceicao pulled their unmarked car into a driveway, partially blocking the path of Camacho and Osario-Meléndez.
Officer Sousa approached Camacho, noting his clothes were wet and his breathing labored, while Officer Conceicao ordered Osario-Meléndez to place his hands on the car's hood.
During questioning, Camacho kept his hands in his sweatshirt pockets. Officer Sousa ordered him to remove them, and Camacho did so slowly, clasping them near his waistband.
Finding Camacho's movement suspicious, Officer Sousa tapped Camacho's waist with his open palm and immediately felt the butt of a gun.
After Sousa yelled "Gun!", Camacho shoved him.
A struggle ensued, after which Camacho was subdued and a loaded .40 caliber Glock revolver was seized from beneath his belt.

Procedural Posture:

A federal grand jury indicted Ángel Camacho on two firearm-related counts.
Camacho filed a motion to suppress the firearm evidence in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, arguing it was obtained via an illegal search and seizure.
The district court judge, the trial court in this matter, denied the motion to suppress, finding that Camacho's intervening act of shoving the officer provided independent grounds for his arrest and the subsequent seizure of the gun.
Following the denial, Camacho entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the court's suppression ruling.
The district court sentenced Camacho to 15 years in prison.
Camacho appealed the district court's denial of his suppression motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a suspect's new criminal act of assaulting an officer, committed immediately after the officer discovers evidence during an unconstitutional frisk that followed an unconstitutional seizure, purge the taint of the initial police illegality and make the evidence admissible under the search incident to arrest doctrine?

Opinions:

Majority - Torruella, J.

No. A suspect's new criminal act does not purge the taint of an unconstitutional search if the evidence is discovered before the new crime occurs. The court reasoned that the initial encounter constituted a seizure without the requisite reasonable suspicion, making it an unconstitutional 'Terry' stop. The subsequent pat-down, or 'tap,' which discovered the gun, was a direct exploitation of this illegal seizure and therefore tainted as 'fruit of the poisonous tree.' Camacho's act of shoving Officer Sousa occurred after the officer had already discovered the gun during the illegal frisk. Therefore, the search that uncovered the weapon was not a search incident to a lawful arrest for the assault; rather, the assault was a reaction to the illegal discovery. Because the discovery of the gun preceded the intervening criminal act, the act could not purge the taint of the Fourth Amendment violation.

Dissenting - Boudin, J.

Yes, the evidence should be admissible. The dissent argued on two primary grounds. First, the initial 'Terry' stop was constitutional because the police possessed reasonable suspicion. The circumstances—reports of a violent gang fight, individuals scattering upon police arrival, and Camacho walking away looking wet and breathing hard—provided a 'particularized and objective basis' for a brief investigatory detention. Second, even if the stop were illegal, Camacho's intervening criminal act of assaulting Officer Sousa purged the taint of any prior illegality. This new crime provided an independent and lawful basis for his arrest, and the seizure of the gun was justified as a search incident to that lawful arrest, consistent with circuit precedent like 'United States v. King'.

Analysis:

This decision refines the application of the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine and its intervening act exception by emphasizing the critical importance of temporal sequence. It establishes that a suspect's criminal reaction to an illegal search does not retroactively validate that search or cleanse the taint from evidence discovered before the reaction occurred. This limits the government's ability to admit evidence found unconstitutionally by arguing that a defendant's subsequent resistance created a new, lawful basis for arrest and search. The ruling reinforces that for an intervening act to dissipate the taint, it must occur before the evidence is discovered, thus breaking the causal chain from the initial police illegality.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Camacho (2011)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"