United States v. Ramon Milian-Rodriguez
759 F.2d 1558, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 29574 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A suspect's general, unqualified written consent to search a premises, combined with a subsequent verbal statement identifying the location of a key to a locked area within that premises, authorizes law enforcement to search that locked area even if they must pick the lock and the suspect is no longer present.
Facts:
- Federal agents investigating Ramon Milian-Rodriguez for currency violations learned he was traveling to Panama with large sums of unreported cash.
- On May 4, 1983, agents stopped Milian's Lear Jet and found over $5.4 million in currency and records detailing the smuggling of approximately $146 million.
- While detained at the airport, Milian offered to cooperate fully with the government in exchange for avoiding criminal charges.
- Milian willingly accompanied agents to the Operation Greenback office and signed a form granting broad consent to search his business premises, authorizing agents to take 'any letters, papers, materials or other property which they desire.'
- Milian went with agents to his office and assisted them. When agents found a closet next to his desk was locked, Milian told them the key was in his briefcase, which was at the Operation Greenback office.
- Milian left the premises around 10:00 p.m. while the agents continued their search.
- At 12:15 a.m., agents picked the lock on the closet door and discovered 62 pounds of cocaine, an Uzi machine gun, other firearms, and currency.
- Around 3:00 a.m., agents went to Milian's home, arrested him without a warrant, and obtained his written consent to search the residence, where they found more firearms and counterfeit currency.
Procedural Posture:
- Ramon Milian-Rodriguez was charged in a 62-count indictment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (trial court).
- Milian filed a motion to suppress evidence seized from his business premises and residence, as well as his subsequent statements.
- The district court granted Milian’s motion to suppress the evidence from the office closet and the residence, and also suppressed his post-arrest statements.
- The United States (government) filed a motion to reopen the record and for reconsideration, which the district court denied.
- The United States (appellant) filed a timely appeal of the suppression order to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
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 law enforcement exceed the scope of a suspect's consent to search his business premises when they pick the lock to a closet after the suspect, who had signed a broad written consent form, identified the location of the closet's key but was no longer on the premises?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, Circuit Judge
No, law enforcement did not exceed the scope of consent. The search of the closet was valid because Milian's consent was broad and his actions reaffirmed it. The court reasoned that the written consent form was general and contained no spatial limitations. Milian's powerful incentive to cooperate to secure a deal supported the interpretation of a broad authorization. Even if the consent were limited to 'files and records,' it was objectively reasonable for agents to believe such items could be in a closet next to his desk. Critically, Milian's act of telling the agents where to find the key to the closet was an additional manifestation of his consent to search it, equivalent to providing the key itself. Because the closet search was lawful, the discovery of cocaine and firearms provided probable cause and exigent circumstances (risk of flight, danger to officers, destruction of evidence) to justify the warrantless arrest of Milian at his home under the exception in Payton v. New York. Consequently, his subsequent consent to search his home was not tainted and was also valid.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the scope of a consensual search is judged by a standard of objective reasonableness, considering the totality of the circumstances. It establishes that a general written consent form creates a powerful presumption that the search's scope is broad, and this presumption is strengthened by a suspect's cooperative actions, such as revealing the location of a key. The ruling gives law enforcement significant latitude in interpreting consent, making it more difficult for a defendant who initially cooperates to later argue that the search exceeded unstated or subjective limitations. Furthermore, the case provides a strong application of the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement for a home arrest, particularly emphasizing the risk of evidence destruction when a suspect becomes aware that a search is uncovering incriminating evidence.
