United States v. Manrique-Frias

692 F.Supp.3d 1036

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Carlos Mauricio MANRIQUE-FRIAS, Defendant.

Cause No. CR-23-50-GF-BMM-1

United States District Court, D. Montana, Great Falls Division

Signed September 18, 2023

Zeno B. Baucus, U.S. Attorney's Office, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff.

Clark Mathews, Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant.

ORDER

Brian Morris, Chief District Judge

INTRODUCTION

A federal grand jury charged Carlos Mauricio Manrique-Frias ("Manrique-Frias") with one count of Transportation of Child Pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1), one count of Possession of Child Pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), and one count of Illegal Entry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1). (Doc. 9 at 2-3.) Manrique-Frias filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol ("CBP") officers resulting from a search of Manrique-Frias's backpack and phone incident to a pedestrian stop on April 23, 2023. (Doc. 15.) The Government opposes the motion. (Doc. 25.) The Court conducted a hearing on the motion on August 15, 2023. (Doc. 29.)

FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND

CBP Agent Thomas Vines ("Agent Vines") received a report that an off-duty CBP agent had observed a man walking southbound along Highway 16 at about 2:45 p.m. on April 23, 2023. (Doc. 25-1.) CBP Agent Nicholas Buchnowski ("Agent Buchnowski") and Agent Vines drove to the area. Id. The agents observed a man walking along Highway 16, approximately 9 miles south of the U.S.-Canada border. (Doc. 25-2.) Agent Buchnowski and Agent Vines pulled over and approached the man. (Doc. 25-1.) The agents discovered upon contact that the man only spoke Spanish. Id.

Agent Buchnowski and Agent Vines identified the man as Manrique-Frias from his Mexican passport. Id. Agent Vines noted that the passport lacked any visa stamps. Id. Agent Buchnowski asked Manrique-Frias if he was illegally in the U.S. (Doc. 25-2.) Manrique-Frias responded that he was not in the U.S. illegally, and he claimed to be working for a nearby ranch. (Doc. 25-2.) Manrique-Frias admitted to being in the U.S. illegally after additional questioning. Id. Manrique-Frias had no prior immigration or criminal history. (Doc. 25-3 at 2.) Agent Buchnowski and Agent Vines arrested Manrique-Frias without a warrant around 3:00 p.m. Agent Buchnowski and Agent Vines seized two phones and a backpack from Manrique-Frias. (Doc. 25-2.) The agents transported Manrique-Frias to the Plentywood Border Patrol Station ("Plentywood Station"). Id.

CBP officers searched Manrique-Frias's backpack at the Plentywood Station. (Doc. 16 at 3.) The officers found a small amount of marijuana and Manrique-Frias's travel documents from Mexico to Canada in the backpack. Id. CBP agents sought consent from Manrique-Frias to search the cell phones in his possession. (Doc. 25-6 at 1.) CBP Agent Tomas Gomez ("Agent Gomez") gave Manrique-Frias a Spanish-language consent form that advised him of his right to withhold consent, his right to withdraw consent, and that any evidence found could be used against him in a criminal trial. (Doc. 25-5 at 1.) Manrique-Frias signed the consent form at 4:35 p.m. Id. Agent Gomez determined that the Samsung cell phone was too damaged to analyze. (Doc. 25-6 at 1.) Agent Gomez downloaded the iPhone XR data at 5:30 p.m. Id. CBP Agent Seth Kimry ("Agent Kimry") performed a manual search of the iPhone while Agent Gomez analyzed the advanced search data. Agent Kimry discovered suspected child pornography in the iPhone's deleted files at approximately 6:18 p.m. Id. at 2.

The CBP officers finally read Manrique-Frias his Miranda rights at 6:46 P.M. Id. Agent Gomez testified that Manrique-Frias signed an acknowledgement of his rights and signed a waiver of his right to have an attorney present. Id. The Government failed to produce these waivers. (Doc. 16 at 4.) The CBP officers conducted a 30-minute interview about 3 hours after having advised Manrique-Frias of his rights. Id. at 4-5. Agent Gomez reported that Manrique-Frias admitted to owning the cell phone. (Doc. 25-6 at 2.) Manrique-Frias claimed that he received the child pornography from a group chat on WhatsApp and immediately blocked the group. (Doc. 25-6 at 3.)

LEGAL STANDARD

The Fourth Amendment safeguards the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV. Evidence proves admissible in federal court if law enforcement's search and seizure has complied with federal constitutional standards. See United States v. Chavez-Vernaza, 844 F.2d 1368 (9th Cir. 1987); Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960). A person must have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched to establish standing to challenge that a search was illegal pursuant to the Fourth Amendment. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143, 99 S.Ct 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978). The expectation of privacy must prove reasonable. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 88, 119 S.Ct. 469, 142 L.Ed.2d 373 (1994).

DISCUSSION

Manrique-Frias contends that law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop, lacked probable cause to arrest him, and violated his Fourth Amendment rights by searching his backpack and phone without a warrant. (Doc. 16 at 1-2.) The Government argues that law enforcement needed no reasonable suspicion for the initial contact because they did not seize Manrique-Frias's person. (Doc. 25 at 2.) The Government further argues that even if there had been a seizure of Manrique-Frias's person, law enforcement officers possessed reasonable suspicion to support the seizure. Id. The Government contends that law enforcement possessed probable cause to arrest Manrique-Frias based on his admission that he was in the United States illegally. Id. Finally, the Government argues that the agents conducted a valid search of Manrique-Frias's phone based on his consent to the search and the extended border search doctrine. Id.

I. Whether law enforcement's encounter with Manrique-Frias constituted a seizure.

" '[A] seizure does not occur simply because a police officer approaches an individual and asks a few questions.' " United States v. Brown, 996 F.3d 998, 1005 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991)). An encounter is consensual "[s]o long as a reasonable person would feel free 'to disregard the police and go about [their] business.' " Bostick, 501 U.S. at 434, 111 S.Ct. 2382 (quoting California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 628, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991)). Consensual encounters do not implicate Fourth Amendment concerns. Bostick, 501 U.S. at 434, 111 S.Ct. 2382. An encounter proves non-consensual where "police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that the person was not free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter." Id. at 439, 111 S.Ct. 2382.

Courts consider all the circumstances surrounding an encounter to determine whether it was consensual. United States v. Kim, 25 F.3d 1426, 1430 (9th Cir. 1994). The U. S. Supreme Court has considered "the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled" in making this determination. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980). The Ninth Circuit also has considered the time of day, the place, and the public visibility of the encounter. Brown, 996 F.3d at 1005. The Ninth Circuit determined an encounter to be consensual in Brown where an officer approached two men sitting in a parking lot in public view in the middle of the day and asked them for identification and about drug activity. Id. at 1002-03, 1005-06.

A reasonable person in Manrique-Frias's position would have felt "free 'to disregard the police and go about [their] business.' " Bostick, 501 U.S. at 434, 111 S.Ct. 2382 (quoting Hodari D., 499 U.S. at 628, 111 S.Ct. 1547). Conflicting evidence exists as to where the patrol vehicle stopped relative to Manrique-Frias. Agent Buchnowski testified that Agent Vines pulled up behind Manrique-Frias. Agent Vines testified that he pulled alongside Manrique-Frias. Manrique-Frias testified that the patrol vehicle stopped in front of him, impeding his forward progress.

The Ninth Circuit has determined an encounter to be consensual where a law enforcement officer stopped a pedestrian walking through a mall to ask him about possession of a weapon. United States v. Orman, 486 F.3d 1170, 1176 (9th Cir. 2007). The Ninth Circuit noted in Orman that the encounter had been brief, the officer had not been threatening, and the encounter had taken place in a public setting. Id. at 1175-76. Manrique-Frias encountered only two CBP officers. The officers did not activate their lights or sirens. The officers never displayed a weapon or physically touched Manrique-Frias in the initial encounter. The encounter occurred on a public highway in the middle of the day. A review of all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter demonstrates that a reasonable person would have felt free to ignore the officers. Brown, 996 F.3d at 1005-06. The encounter between Manrique-Frias and the CBP officers proves consensual and did not require reasonable suspicion.

II. Whether Agent Vines and Agent Buchnowski had reasonable suspicion to stop Manrique-Frias even if the encounter rose to the level of a seizure.

Law enforcement may stop and detain an individual or vehicle upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002); United States v. Choudhry, 461 F.3d 1097, 1100 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006). "Reasonable suspicion exists when an officer is aware of specific, articulable facts which, when considered...