Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, vs. CARLOS MARTINEZ, and ESVIN MARTINEZ, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Currently pending before the Court are a number of pre-trial motions submitted by Carlos Martinez ("Defendant"), one of the two named defendants in the above-captioned case.1 In his motions, Defendant seeks, inter alia, the suppression of evidence allegedly obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the suppression of statements allegedly obtained subsequent to an involuntary waiver of Defendant's constitutional rights. The motions have been fully briefed by both sides. The Court held an evidentiary hearing on April 30, 2003. Upon consideration of the arguments made in support of, and opposition to, the motions, the Court makes the following determinations. I. On February 18, 2003, U.S. Customs Officials inspected two packages at the United Parcel Service ("UPS") international hub in Miami, Florida. The two packages were addressed to Samuel Garcia at 8312 14th Avenue, Apt. 302, Hyattsville, Maryland, 20783. Each package bore the same phone number. The return address listed on both packages was in Guatemala City, Guatemala. Upon inspection of the packages, the agents found three leather seat covers. After conducting x-rays Criminal No. AW-03-102

1

Esvin Martinez, a co-defendant, filed pre-trial motions separately.

on the seat covers, the agents uncovered three (3) grams of a white powdery substance, which later tested positively for the presence of cocaine. The packages were forwarded to the Office of the Special Agent in Baltimore, Maryland. A search in a database for the name Samuel Garcia turned up no positive identification. Further investigation by the agents revealed that the address listed on the packages was for an apartment leased by Defendant. The officers also checked the phone number on the packages. Their search revealed that the phone number on the packages was that of Defendant. The agents formulated a plan to effectuate a "controlled delivery" of the packages to the listed apartment. The agents appeared before a magistrate who granted the agents judicial authorization to place an electronic tracking device in the packages. The agents removed the majority of the cocaine from the packages leaving only a "representative sample" of one (1) gram. The agents also inserted a tracking device. The device was rigged so that it would emit signals at a certain rate while the packages were closed. When the packages were opened, the rate of the radio signals would change alerting the agents to the fact that the recipients had opened the package. The agents did not obtain a search warrant for entry into Defendant's home. The delivery was set for February 21, 2003. Special Agent Dexter Dixon testified that the officers placed an undercover agent in a UPS outfit to carry out the delivery. Defendant accepted and signed for the packages. The agents had brought with them to the scene an "entry team" in the event that the tracking device sounded. Sometime after the package was accepted, the tracking device signaled that the packages were open. Immediately thereafter, the agents made a forcible entry into the apartment. Upon entry, the agents secured the premises and did a protective sweep of the apartment. 2

Defendant was handcuffed and placed in the living room area. Agent Francisco Gerardo, a Spanish speaking agent, informed Defendant in Spanish that it would be better for him if he cooperated with the agents. He also mentioned something about deportation, though it was unclear what was said exactly. Defendant was then read his Miranda warnings in Spanish. He then signed a waiver of his rights. II. Defendant raises several arguments for why both the evidence seized subsequent to entry and the statements made subsequent to the Miranda warnings should be suppressed.2 Defendant's overarching argument is that the forcible entry was made without a warrant and that no exigent circumstances existed to justify the actions of the agents. Defendant further argues that any statements made by Defendant after the reading of the Miranda warnings are subject to suppression because Defendant's waiver of his rights was either coerced or involuntary. A) Warrantless Entry It is undisputed that the officers forcibly entered the apartment of Defendant without first obtaining judicial approbation. The government has asserted, however, that an exception to the warrant requirement applies in that exigent circumstances existed to justify the agents' entry. Defendant counters that the government has failed to carry its burden of establishing exigent circumstances3 in that (a) the agents had an opportunity to obtain a warrant but failed to do so, and/or (b) the agents impermissibly created the exigent circumstances on which they seek to rely to justify

The Government indicated at the hearing that it did not intend to use the statements made prior to the Miranda warnings so the Court need not analyze the validity of those statements. See Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 749, 80 L. Ed. 2d 732, 104 S. Ct. 2091 (1983)(burden on government to establish exigent circumstances).
3

2

3

the warrantless entry. The Fourth Amendment prohibits government agents from conducting "unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV. "It is a `basis principle of Fourth Amendment law' that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 63 L. Ed. 2d 639, 100 S. Ct. 1371 (1980). "Nevertheless, an exception to the warrant requirement is made when certain exigent circumstances exist." United States v. Cephas, 254 F.3d 488, 494 (4th Cir. 2001). "For example, when police officers . . . reasonably believe that evidence may be destroyed or removed before they could obtain a warrant, exigent circumstances justify a warrantless entry." Id. at 494-95. The Fourth Circuit has stated that courts should take the following factors into account when considering the government's claim of exigent circumstances: (1) the degree of urgency involved and the amount of time required to obtain a warrant; (2) the officers' reasonable belief that contraband is about to be destroyed; (3) the possible danger to police officers at the site; (4) information indicating that the possessors of the contraband are aware that police are on their tail; and (5) the ready destructibility of the contraband. See United States v. Reed, 935 F.2d 641, 642 (4th Cir. 1991)(citing United States v. Turner, 650 F.2d 526, 528 (4th Cir. 1981)). There is, however, no "precise formula" because "emergency circumstances will vary from case to case." Id. at 643. Upon review of the facts in this case, the Court concludes that the agents reasonably concluded that exigent circumstances existed at the time of the entry. Forcible entries into a home are valid when exigent circumstances exist even in the absence of a warrant. When the packages were delivered, the agents were unsure what was to be the final destination for the contraband. They had run a check on the name "Samuel Garcia"

Download US v. Martinez.pdf

Maryland Law