United States v. Coriz

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. GILBERT CORIZ, Defendant.

No. Cr. 21-1820 KWR/KK

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

February 10, 2023

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

KEA W RIGGS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Gilbert Coriz's Motion to Suppress (Doc. 34) (“Motion”), filed September 25, 2022. In his Motion, Defendant asks the Court to suppress “all physical evidence unlawfully seized from 2416 Camino Capitan, Santa Fe, New Mexico on January 1 2021.” (Id. at 1.) Pursuant to an Order of Reference entered on October 4, 2022, United States Magistrate Judge Kirtan Khalsa held an evidentiary hearing on the Motion on November 30, 2022, and on January 3, 2023 issued her Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (“PFRD”) recommending that the Motion be denied. (Docs. 39, 48, 50, 51.) Defendant timely filed Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (“Objections”) on January 23, 2023. (Docs. 54.) Having considered de novo the parties' submissions, the evidence presented, the PFRD and Defendant's Objections thereto, the record, and the relevant law, and being otherwise fully advised, the Court FINDS that Defendant's Objections should be OVERRULED, the Magistrate Judge's PFRD should be ADOPTED, and Defendant's Motion should be DENIED.

I. Standard of Review

Federal district judges may refer motions to suppress evidence in criminal cases to a magistrate judge for a recommended disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). “Within 14 days after being served with a copy” of the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations, “any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district judge

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the ... proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. [The district judge] may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The [district] judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

Id. “[A] party's objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review.” United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). Further, “[i]n this circuit, theories raised for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge's report are deemed waived.” United States v. Garfinkle, 261 F.3d 1030, 1031 (10th Cir. 2001); Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996).

Where a party files timely and specific objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation on a “dispositive” motion such as a motion to suppress, “the statute calls for a de novo determination, not a de novo hearing.” United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674 (1980). A de novo determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) “requires the district court to consider relevant evidence of record and not merely review the magistrate judge's recommendation.” In re Griego, 64 F.3d 580, 584 (10th Cir. 1995). Although a district court must make a de novo determination of objections under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the district court is not precluded from relying on the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations. See Raddatz, 447 U.S. at 676 (“[I]n providing for a ‘de novo determination' rather than de novo hearing, Congress intended to permit whatever reliance a district judge, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, chose to place on a magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations.”) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)).

II. Factual Findings

At around 2:00 p.m. on January 1, 2021, Santa Fe Police Department (“SFPD”) Detective Jared Alire applied for a warrant to search the residence, curtilage, and three vehicles at 2416 Camino Capitan in Santa Fe, New Mexico.^[1] (Doc. 48, Ex. 1; Doc. 50 at 12:12-18, 14:7-24; 15:14 to 16:4.) In support of the application, Detective Alire executed an affidavit based on conversations with other law enforcement officers and his own investigation.^[2] (Doc. 48, Ex. 1; Doc. 50 at 6:8 to 11:23.) Detective Alire's affidavit includes the following facts.

According to a neighbor's surveillance camera footage, at about 2:34 a.m. on January 1, 2021, a sedan arrived at 2416 Camino Capitan and sounded its horn. (Doc. 48, Ex. 1 at 3-4.) A woman exited the residence and argued with someone in the sedan, saying “this is war.” (Id. at 4.) Four or five more people exited the residence and yelled at someone in the sedan. (Id.) One of the occupants of the residence got into the sedan, which began to drive away. (Id.) A second occupant positioned himself in the middle of Camino Capitan and shot at the sedan, and a third occupant positioned himself in the driveway of the residence and also shot at the sedan. (Id.) After the shots were fired, five people went back inside the residence. (Id.) At 2:49 a.m., two people got into a dark vehicle with a loud muffler, backed out of the driveway, and drove away. (Id. at 5.)

At 2:52 a.m., SFPD officers were dispatched to 2416 Camino Capitan pursuant to a “shots fired” call. (Id. at 3.) The caller told SFPD Officer Francisco Alvarado that she heard several gunshots near her residence, which caused her to review footage from her surveillance camera. (Id.) In this footage, she saw an altercation at 2416 Camino Capitan in which two people shot at a fleeing vehicle. (Id.) The caller also told Officer Alvarado that the footage showed several people going back inside the residence at 2416 Camino Capitan after the shots were fired. (Id.) The Regional Emergency Communication Center advised Officer Alvarado that there was a lengthy history of calls regarding 2416 Camino Capitan and gave him three names linked to those calls, including Defendant's. (Id.) Officer Alvarado reviewed the caller's surveillance camera footage. (Id. at 3-4.)

The neighbor's surveillance camera footage showed that at about 3:26 a.m., two people exited the residence at 2416 Camino Capitan and searched the ground with flashlights, bending down several times to pick up objects before reentering the residence. (Id. at 4.)

At about 3:36 a.m., Officer Alvarado, and SFPD Officers Enrique Moreno, Jonathan Harmon, and Gabriel Weide went to Camino Capitan to try to gather shell casings and find any people who were hurt but, failing to do so, they left. (Id.)

The surveillance camera footage then showed that at about 3:51 a.m., two people again emerged from the residence at 2416 Camino Capitan and searched the ground with flashlights before reentering the residence. (Id.) One of these people appeared to be a woman wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt. (Id.) At 4:19 a.m., the dark vehicle with the loud muffler returned to 2416 Camino Capitan and parked in the driveway. (Id. at 5.) Two people exited the vehicle and entered the residence, where they remained for a few minutes. (Id.) They then exited the residence, entered a dark vehicle, and drove away.^[3] (Id.) At 5:25 a.m., another person exited the residence and rummaged inside a vehicle before reentering the residence. (Id.)

At around 7:30 a.m., SFPD officers found a red pick-up truck across the street from 2416 Camino Capitan with a window shot out and bullet holes in it. (Id. at 4.) Officers retrieved shell casings from the sidewalk in front of 2416 Camino Capitan and saw a gold Chrysler Sebring with bullet holes parked in the property's driveway. (Id.) SFPD Officer Patrick Pinson also reviewed the caller's surveillance camera footage. (Id. at 3-5.)

Officers made contact with homeowner S.C. at 2416 Camino Capitan.^[4] (Id. at 5.) She refused to speak with them and told them to get a search warrant. (Id.) Officer Pinson noted that S.C. was wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt and appeared to be one of the people seen on the surveillance camera footage picking up items from the driveway. (Id.)

On the basis of Detective Alire's affidavit detailing the above facts, Santa Fe Magistrate Court Judge David A. Segura issued a warrant authorizing law enforcement officers to search “the person, place, records, and/or data described in the [search warrant] Affidavit” for “the person and/or property (evidence) described in the Affidavit.” (Doc. 48, Ex. 2 at 1-2; Doc. 50 at 91:7 to 92:15.) The warrant further states that “[a] copy of the Affidavit is attached and made part of this Warrant.”^[5] (Doc. 48, Ex. 2 at 1.) Judge Segura issued the warrant at 2:10 p.m. on January 1, 2021. (Id.)

The affidavit incorporated into the warrant seeks authorization to search the “residence located at 2416 Camino Capitan,” its curtilage, and three vehicles on the premises^[6] for evidence of the crimes of shooting at or from a motor vehicle, tampering with evidence, negligent use of a deadly weapon, and criminal damage to property, in violation of N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 30-3-8(B), 30-22-5(A) and (B)(2), 30-7-4(A)(1), and 30-15-1.^[7] (Doc. 48, Ex. 1 at 1-2; see also Doc. 50 at 92:3-7.) The affidavit describes the following categories of evidence to be searched for:

(1) “Photographs to be taken of the entire residence both inside and out, to include the curtilage of the residence”;

(2) “Documents, photographs, or other items that will help to identify the occupants of the residence”;

(3) “Material(s) apparently used and/or intended for use in administering aid and/or assistance to injured people”;

(4) “Firearm(s), firearm components, firearm accessories, firearm cleaning materials, firearm cases, firearm owner manuals and/or any other items used to facilitate the possession, use, maintenance and/or

...