United States v. Pineda-Buenaventura
622 F.3d 761 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Voluntary consent to a search, given after an illegal police entry, can be valid if the consent is sufficiently attenuated from the initial illegality. The attenuation is determined by analyzing the temporal proximity of the illegality and the consent, the presence of intervening circumstances, and, most importantly, the purpose and flagrancy of the police misconduct.
Facts:
- Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agents obtained a search warrant for Apartment A at a specific address, based on information that the upstairs unit, Apartment B, was empty.
- The executing officers, who were not aware that the warrant was limited to Apartment A, entered both Apartments A and B at 6:01 a.m.
- Inside Apartment B, officers found and removed Gerardo Pineda-Soria and his two co-tenants, Hoguer Pineda and Adrian Lazcano.
- Pineda-Soria was transported to the police station, while his co-tenants remained at the scene.
- Upon realizing the warrant did not cover Apartment B, the officers immediately ceased their search and withdrew from the unit.
- Approximately 45 minutes after the initial illegal entry, a Spanish-speaking officer asked the co-tenants, who were not handcuffed, for consent to search Apartment B, informing them they had the right to refuse.
- Both co-tenants, after stating they lived in the apartment, gave oral consent to the search.
- After consent was given, officers re-entered Apartment B and discovered a kilogram of cocaine under Pineda-Soria's bed.
Procedural Posture:
- Gerardo Pineda-Soria was charged in federal district court with possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
- Pineda-Soria filed a motion to suppress the physical evidence found in his apartment and statements he made following the search.
- Following an evidentiary hearing, a magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation to deny the motion to suppress.
- The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and denied Pineda-Soria's motion.
- Pineda-Soria entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the district court's denial of his suppression motion.
- Pineda-Soria (appellant) appealed the denial of his motion to suppress to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing against the United States (appellee).
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 voluntary consent to search, given by co-tenants after police illegally entered and secured an apartment by mistake, purge the taint of the initial illegal entry, thereby making the subsequent search and seizure of evidence constitutional under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Williams, Circuit Judge
Yes, the voluntary consent to search purged the taint from the initial illegal entry, making the subsequent search constitutional. The court found the consent was not tainted by the prior illegal entry by applying the three factors from Brown v. Illinois. First, the 45-minute period between the illegal entry and the oral consent provided sufficient temporal distance. Second, significant intervening circumstances were present, as the co-tenants were not in custody, were not handcuffed, and were explicitly informed by officers that they had the right to refuse consent. Third, and most dispositively, the police misconduct was not flagrant or purposeful; the initial entry into Apartment B was an unintentional mistake, and officers immediately withdrew upon its discovery. This lack of flagrant misconduct weighed heavily in favor of finding the taint was purged. Therefore, the consents given by the co-tenants, who had apparent authority, were voluntary and effective, validating the subsequent search.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that an initial Fourth Amendment violation does not automatically poison all subsequent evidence. It demonstrates the practical application of the 'purging the taint' doctrine, showing that voluntary consent can serve as a powerful intervening act that breaks the causal chain from the illegality. The court places significant weight on the non-flagrant, mistaken nature of the police conduct, suggesting that the exclusionary rule is less likely to apply when officers make good-faith errors rather than intentionally disregarding constitutional boundaries. This case serves as a key example for law students on how courts balance the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule against the practical realities of law enforcement investigations.
