United States v. Farias-Gonzalez
556 F.3d 1181, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2060, 2009 WL 232328 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the cost-benefit balancing test for the exclusionary rule, evidence establishing a criminal defendant's identity (such as fingerprints, photographs, and alien files) is not suppressible, even if obtained following an unconstitutional search and seizure, when offered solely to prove who the defendant is.
Facts:
- In 2006, two Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) special agents patrolled apartment complexes in metro-Atlanta for possible gang activity.
- The agents observed Jose Farias-Gonzalez working on his car and, believing his tattoos and haircut were similar to those of Hispanic gang members, approached him with a visible gun on one agent's belt.
- The agents lifted Farias-Gonzalez’s shirt sleeve to check for tattoos on his upper arm, then asked for identification.
- Farias-Gonzalez stated his identification was inside his apartment and agreed to let the agents accompany him there for safety reasons.
- Inside his apartment, Farias-Gonzalez produced a Mexican voter registration card, a Mexican driver’s license, and a Tennessee driver’s license, all identifying him as Norberto Gonzalez.
- Suspecting he was in the country illegally, agents took Farias-Gonzalez’s fingerprints using a portable electronic fingerprint machine.
- The fingerprints revealed his true name was Jose Farias-Gonzalez and that he had previously been deported from the United States.
Procedural Posture:
- Jose Farias-Gonzalez was charged with illegally reentering the country after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
- Farias-Gonzalez filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of what he contended was an unconstitutional search and seizure.
- A magistrate judge issued a report recommending the district court deny the motion to suppress, finding no Fourth Amendment violation.
- Farias-Gonzalez objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
- The district court conducted a de novo review, found that an unconstitutional search and seizure occurred, and granted in part and denied in part the motion to suppress, ordering that all evidence obtained as a result be suppressed except for fingerprint evidence, photographs, and the alien file of Farias-Gonzalez.
- Farias-Gonzalez entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to challenge the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress.
- Farias-Gonzalez appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, arguing the district court erred in not suppressing the identity-related evidence.
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 the exclusionary rule apply to suppress evidence of a defendant's identity when that evidence is obtained after an unconstitutional search and seizure, but is offered solely to prove who the defendant is?
Opinions:
Majority - Cox
No, the exclusionary rule does not apply to suppress identity-related evidence (fingerprints, photographs, and alien files) in a criminal prosecution when offered solely to prove who the defendant is, even if obtained after an unconstitutional search and seizure. The court assumed, for the sake of argument, that the district court's finding of a Fourth Amendment violation (unreasonable search and seizure, involuntary consent, and lack of Miranda warning) was correct. However, it clarified that INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, which stated 'identity is never suppressible,' was dictum because that case involved a jurisdictional challenge in a civil deportation hearing, not an evidentiary challenge in a criminal prosecution. Applying the cost-benefit balancing test from Hudson v. Michigan, the court found the social costs of suppressing identity-related evidence to be high; it would undermine the criminal justice system by preventing consideration of criminal history, application of recidivism statutes, and prosecution of crimes requiring official records (like illegal reentry), effectively allowing defendants to hide their true selves. Conversely, the deterrence benefits of applying the exclusionary rule to identity-related evidence were deemed minimal. The court reasoned that identity evidence (photographs, fingerprints) can be obtained without Fourth Amendment violations, so there is no incentive for police to violate constitutional rights to acquire it. Furthermore, suppressing identity evidence would often only postpone prosecution, as the government could simply obtain new, admissible identity evidence and re-indict. Civil suits provide an adequate alternative deterrent for Fourth Amendment violations. Regarding the alien file, the court relied on circuit precedent, United States v. Martinez, which held that an alien file is not suppressible when the government already knows the alien's identity and possesses the file, as it is a pre-existing government record not product of unconstitutional activity. Since identity evidence is not suppressible, no constitutional violation distinguishes this case from Martinez regarding the alien file.
Analysis:
This case significantly limits the scope of the exclusionary rule by establishing a specific exception for identity-related evidence in criminal prosecutions. The Eleventh Circuit's application of the Hudson v. Michigan cost-benefit analysis reinforces a trend by the Supreme Court to narrow the rule's application, prioritizing the functioning of the criminal justice system and the ability to prosecute over deterring certain Fourth Amendment violations. This decision makes it clear that the fundamental need to know a defendant's identity outweighs the minimal deterrence benefits associated with suppressing such evidence. Future cases will likely cite this precedent to argue against suppression of fundamental facts like identity, especially where alternative means of deterrence exist or the evidence could be lawfully obtained.
