United States v. Hector Soto-Zuniga
2016 WL 4932319, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16962, 837 F.3d 992 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(E), a defendant is entitled to discovery of government information that is material to preparing a motion to suppress evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, as such a motion is part of preparing the 'defense.' Information is material if it could help uncover admissible evidence or formulate a defense strategy, even if the information itself is not admissible at trial.
Facts:
- Hector Soto-Zuniga's cousin's husband, Christian Rios Campos, asked him to give a ride to three teenagers.
- Soto-Zuniga picked up the three unidentified teenagers in Otay Mesa and dropped them off in San Ysidro.
- On June 29, 2013, Soto-Zuniga was stopped while driving alone at a U.S. Border Patrol checkpoint in San Clemente, California.
- Agents directed Soto-Zuniga to a secondary inspection area, citing his nervous behavior.
- One agent reported smelling marijuana coming from the vehicle and observing a cigarillo and loose tobacco.
- Another agent reported that Soto-Zuniga admitted to smoking marijuana in the car with a friend.
- During a search of the vehicle, agents discovered four bundles containing 2.9 kilograms of methamphetamine hidden under a floor mat behind the driver's seat.
- Soto-Zuniga maintained his innocence, claiming he was unaware of the drugs and that the teenagers must have planted them; it was later confirmed that Rios Campos was a known drug smuggler who recruited juveniles.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States government charged Hector Soto-Zuniga in the United States District Court with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.
- Before his first trial, Soto-Zuniga filed motions to suppress the drug evidence and a related motion for discovery of the checkpoint's arrest and search statistics; the district court denied the motions.
- Soto-Zuniga's first trial ended in a hung jury, and the court declared a mistrial.
- Prior to the second trial, Soto-Zuniga filed a motion for discovery of the government's investigation into Christian Rios Campos's drug smuggling operation, which the district court also denied.
- Following a second trial, a jury found Soto-Zuniga guilty.
- The district court sentenced Soto-Zuniga to six years in prison.
- Soto-Zuniga (appellant) appealed his conviction and the denial of his discovery motions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(E) require the government to produce discovery, such as checkpoint arrest and search statistics, that is material to a defendant's motion to suppress evidence on the basis that the checkpoint's primary purpose is unconstitutional?
Opinions:
Majority - Gould, Circuit Judge
Yes. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(E) requires the government to produce discovery that is material to preparing a defense, which includes motions to suppress evidence based on constitutional challenges. The court reasoned that the constitutionality of a suspicionless checkpoint stop hinges on whether its 'primary purpose' is a special need, like immigration control, or general crime control. To challenge the San Clemente checkpoint's purpose, Soto-Zuniga needed discovery of its arrest and search statistics. The court distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Armstrong, which limited discovery for selective prosecution claims, holding that Armstrong does not preclude discovery for 'shield' claims like a motion to suppress evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Citing its own precedent in 'dog discovery' cases (Cedano-Arellano), the court affirmed that Rule 16 permits discovery into the constitutionality of how evidence was obtained. The court also held it was an abuse of discretion to deny discovery of the investigation into Rios's smuggling operation, as that information was material to Soto-Zuniga's defense that the teenagers he transported planted the drugs without his knowledge.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of criminal discovery under Rule 16 in the Ninth Circuit, pushing back against a broad interpretation of United States v. Armstrong. It solidifies the principle that a motion to suppress is an integral part of 'preparing the defense,' entitling defendants to discovery that supports Fourth Amendment challenges. The ruling empowers defendants to conduct fact-based inquiries into the constitutionality of programmatic law enforcement actions, such as immigration checkpoints, by demanding empirical data on their actual operation. This precedent will likely lead to increased discovery litigation regarding the 'primary purpose' of various suspicionless search and seizure regimes.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Hector Soto-Zuniga