United States v. Cruz

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DANIEL JIMENEZ DE LA CRUZ

No. 3:19-CR-00048 (KAD)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

January 7, 2022

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Re: AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPRESS, ECF No. 133

KARI A. DOOLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On February 20, 2019, Daniel De La Cruz Jimenez (the “Defendant”) was indicted by a grand jury and charged with possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, specifically, fentanyl in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(vi) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a narcotics trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), and possession of a firearm by an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(A) and 924(a)(2). Pending before the Court is the Defendant's motion to suppress. Therein, the Defendant seeks to suppress tangible evidence seized from his residence on September 20, 2018 on the ground that the authorizing search warrant lacked probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment. He also seeks to suppress the statements he made to law enforcement officers at the time of the execution of the search warrant on the grounds that the statements were obtained in violation of his Miranda rights and the Fifth Amendment and were not otherwise knowing or voluntary even if no Fifth Amendment violation occurred. Initially, this latter argument was premised on the Defendant's inability to understand the Miranda warnings because they were given in English and the Defendant is a native Spanish speaker. By amendment to the motion to suppress, the Defendant also avers that his waiver of the right to remain silent was not knowing and intelligent insofar as he was not competent to waive his Miranda rights, that is, he lacked the intellectual or cognitive capacity to understand the import of the Miranda rights or the consequences of waiving those rights by speaking with law enforcement. The Court heard evidence over several diverse dates, has considered all of the parties' submissions, to include post hearing briefs, and renders this decision based thereupon. For the reasons that follow, based on the more credible and weightier evidence, the motion to suppress is DENIED.

The Evidence

As to the Fourth Amendment claim, ^[1] there is no factual disagreement that in September 2018, the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) was conducting an investigation into narcotics trafficking out of the DEA Boston office and in connection with that investigation learned of possible narcotics activity occurring in Connecticut. As a result, the New Haven division of the DEA was contacted and provided with the available information. On September 20, 2018, a search warrant application was presented to Magistrate Judge Spector for a search of the premises at 10 Bronson Street, first floor, Waterbury, Connecticut. Magistrate Judge Spector reviewed the application and authorized the search warrant thereby finding probable cause to believe that the target premises, 10 Bronson Street, first floor, Waterbury Connecticut, contained evidence of narcotics trafficking. The information contained in the search warrant application is discussed infra, as necessary to the analysis of the Defendant's Fourth Amendment claim that the warrant application failed to establish probable cause for the search.

As to the Fifth Amendment claims, an evidentiary hearing was necessary in light of the factual issues raised by the Defendant in his declaration filed in support of his motion to suppress. The Defendant's declaration indicates that the Defendant possesses a limited understanding of or ability to speak English. The Defendant also describes the events surrounding the execution of the search warrant. According to the declaration, at approximately 10:53 a.m. on September 20 2018, the Defendant was startled awake by a loud noise at his front door, which turned out to be a team of law enforcement officers using a battering ram to breach the door. The Defendant avers both that he told the officers that he would open the door and that he subsequently opened the door for the officers. The Defendant next avers that after he opened the door, he was “slammed” to the floor of his living room before being handcuffed and taken to the kitchen, where he was ordered to sit down. According to the Defendant, two officers began talking with him as others searched his apartment and that, at that point, he did not recall any officers reading him his rights. The declaration indicates that the Defendant was then questioned while officers searched the house for more than an hour, and, eventually, an officer walked in with a garbage bag. Following the description of the officer's entrance with the garbage bag, the declaration indicates that the Defendant “was scared” and “did not know [he] could keep quiet, ” so he made statements to the officers. Lastly, the Defendant avers that “[f]inally, one of the officers told me my rights. At that point, I stopped talking, and the officers drove me to a police station.”^[2]

On March 13, 2020, the first day of the hearing on the motion to suppress, the Court heard testimony from Special Agent (“SA”) Glen Coletti, who was present for the execution of the warrant. He testified that, during the “knock and announce, ” he observed the Defendant through a window into the apartment, and that when the Defendant did not respond to the knock and announce, they used a battering ram to gain entrance. Approximately six officers entered with their firearms drawn. The Defendant was ordered to the ground, in English. The Defendant complied, and he was then handcuffed, picked up, and seated in a chair. At that point, SA Coletti testified that he asked the Defendant whether he understood English and the Defendant responded that he did. SA Coletti then read the Defendant his Miranda rights in English by reading DEA Form 13A to the Defendant. The Defendant indicated that he understood his rights and was willing to answer questions.

Thereafter, SA Coletti spoke with the Defendant for approximately 15 minutes in total, and because SA Coletti does not speak Spanish, he spoke with the Defendant in English. Among other statements, the Defendant acknowledged ownership of the gun and drugs located at the residence. He told SA Coletti that he stores the gun and drugs outside while he is sleeping. He also, initially, admitted that the currency found during the search, approximately $10, 000, was his and that it was money he had saved. He later changed his statement and indicated that he was holding the currency for someone else. The Defendant told SA Coletti that an individual had brought “two owls, ” or buho statues to the home, that the Defendant took photos of the statues, and that the statues were no longer there.

SA Coletti testified that his conversation with the Defendant was not strained at all; that the Defendant's answers to his questions were on point and responsive; that he saw no indication that the Defendant did not understand him; that he was confident that the Defendant understood him; that he does not recall the Defendant ever asking him to repeat himself; that he does not recall that he ever needed to ask the Defendant to repeat himself; and that the Defendant was very calm and cooperative. SA Coletti testified that he had a good rapport with the Defendant, was comfortable speaking with him, and hoped the Defendant would continue to cooperate with him. SA Coletti further testified that it is not unusual for him to encounter people who do not understand English, and, in those circumstances, he seeks the aid of an interpreter. During SA Coletti's testimony, the Government introduced into evidence his notes, made during the course of the execution of the search warrant. In those notes, SA Coletti wrote that the search team made entry at 10:53 a.m. and that the defendant was given his Miranda warnings at 10:57 a.m. The notes also reflect some of the details of the Defendant's statements. Additionally, the Government introduced as exhibits photographs from the execution of the search warrant through SA Coletti.

On cross examination, SA Coletti acknowledged that he did not ask the Defendant whether he preferred to speak in Spanish. He also acknowledged that he did not have the Defendant sign a written Miranda waiver form because, though normally his practice, he did not have such a form with him. Moreover, none of the original six officers who entered the residence spoke Spanish.

The hearing was adjourned and reconvened on July 17, 2020. On that date, the Court next heard from Special Agent James Keczemethy. SA Keczemethy was the affiant on the search warrant application. On the morning of September 20, 2018 after Magistrate Judge Spector authorized the search warrant, SA Keczemethy traveled to Waterbury, where the search of the residence was underway. When he arrived at 10 Bronson Street, Waterbury, Connecticut, he was advised that the Defendant had been given his Miranda warnings. SA Keczemethy then spoke to the Defendant who was still seated in the kitchen and secured with handcuffs. SA Keczemethy described the Defendant as polite and cordial. As SA Keczemethy does not speak Spanish, his conversation with the Defendant was entirely in English. SA Keczemethy asked the Defendant a series of question which the Defendant answered. The Defendant's answers were responsive to the questions. SA Keczemethy described the Defendant's responses as “logical, they made sense.” (Hr'g Tr. 129:18-21, ECF No. 96.) SA Keczemethy did not have difficulty understanding the Defendant, and the Defendant did not advise SA Keczemethy that he had any difficulty understanding SA Keczemethy. The Defendant did not tell SA Keczemethy that he...