Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 15-2367
Appellee,
v.
YGOA ALMONTE-BEZ,
Defendant, Appellant.
Before
jury convicted.
entry and its aftermath, the appellant now presses this single-
judgment below.
I. BACKGROUND
take the facts as the trial court found them, consistent with
- 2 -
record support, see United States v. Romain, 393 F.3d 63, 66 (1st
summer of 2013, DEA agents, working with state and local police
calls, the agents learned that the targets were planning to rob a
a weekly basis.1
a GPS unit to Medina's car in the hope that it would lead them to
his cache of drugs and cash. The agents decided that it was time
of Medina's car. On the morning of July 26, 2013, they hit the
heavy that he needed both hands to lift it. He hoisted the trash
- 3 -
The agents followed Medina and with the aid of state
and local police pulled him over after they had observed him
agents questioned him about where he had come from and where he
false.
spotted a large wad of cash sticking out of his pants pocket. They
seized the cash and arrested Medina for his participation in the
trash bag that Medina had lugged from the building on Cedar Street,
they found more than $370,000 in cash. They discovered more cash
- 4 -
for the apartment. Instead, they went to that apartment and
that is, toward the back of the apartment. The front door was
agents broke down the side door and forcibly entered the premises.
escape through the back door.2 They immediately took the appellant
into custody.
States v. Martins, 413 F.3d 139, 149-50 (1st Cir. 2005) (discussing
heroin sales.
- 5 -
Relying partly on what they had seen in plain view, the
agents' initial entry into the apartment was unlawful, both the
United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-85 (1963). The government opposed
- 6 -
14-10089, 2014 WL 6751207, at *1 (D. Mass. Dec. 1, 2014).
II. ANALYSIS
(1996); Romain, 393 F.3d at 68. Our analysis begins with bedrock:
- 7 -
One such exception to the Fourth Amendment's Warrant
U.S. 452, 459-60 (2011); United States v. Curzi, 867 F.2d 36, 41
the premises. See United States v. Capelton, 350 F.3d 231, 240
place."3 United States v. Tanguay, 787 F.3d 44, 50 (1st Cir. 2015)
Capelton, 350 F.3d at 240. Even when armed with probable cause,
warrant." Matalon v. Hynnes, 806 F.3d 627, 636 (1st Cir. 2015)
1999)).
3 We
say "pertinently" because, in other contexts, the contours
of the necessary showing of probable cause may differ. See, e.g.,
Martins, 413 F.3d at 147 (discussing emergency aid doctrine).
- 8 -
The exigent circumstances doctrine reflects an
- 9 -
eschewed any findings on this issue, instead assuming that the
time that they effected their warrantless entry. See United States
v. Tibolt, 72 F.3d 965, 969 (1st Cir. 1995). In this instance, the
agents knew that Medina rented the apartment and, based on the
queries during the traffic stop and his failure credibly to explain
believe that the cash had not been obtained legally. To cinch the
- 10 -
had been described in the wiretap intercepts as receiving weekly
832 F.2d 1299, 1305-06 (1st Cir. 1987). Rather, it requires (as
weekly drug shipments, and that the government did not produce
United States v. Nuez, 852 F.3d 141, 144 (1st Cir. 2017). Thus,
- 11 -
This deferential standard of review presents an
851 F.3d 91, 101 (1st Cir. 2017). Here, we have formed no such
was a known drug dealer and received regular drug shipments. While
- 12 -
facts, as supportably found by the district court, are
inside the apartment running away from the door. They noticed
that the door was sealed shut. Given the totality of what they
knew and what they reasonably suspected, the agents had reason to
was trying to destroy evidence. The agents knew that drugs can be
eye. See King, 563 U.S. at 461; Samboy, 433 F.3d at 158.
Furthermore, the fact that the front door was sealed shut was
itself suspicious.
enter the premises without a warrant. See King, 563 U.S. at 460;
- 13 -
In an effort to blunt the force of this reasoning, the
consistent with the sounds made by someone moving toward the front
graveyard: the front door was sealed shut and, given the
apartment were moving toward his location or away from it. The
agents' impressions that the noises they heard sounded like someone
6751207, at *1. That was a finding of fact, see Nuez, 852 F.3d
suppress.
- 14 -
III. CONCLUSION
Affirmed.
- 15 -