United States v. Molina-Isidoro

267 F.Supp.3d 900

UNITED STATES of America

v.Maria Isabel MOLINA–ISIDORO, Defendant.

EP–16–CR–1402–PRM

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division.

Signed October 7, 2016

Robert Jerome White, United States Attorney's Office, El Paso, TX, for United States of America.

Louis E. Lopez, Jr., Attorney at Law, El Paso, TX, for Defendant.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

PHILIP R. MARTINEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On this day, the Court considered Defendant Maria Isabel Molina–Isidoro's ("Molina") "Motion to Suppress and Memorandum in Support" (ECF No. 16) [hereinafter "Motion"], filed on September 2, 2016; the United States' (the "Government") "Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Suppress" (ECF No. 17) [hereinafter "Response"], filed on September 2, 2016; and the parties' "Joint Stipulation of Facts" (ECF No. 21) [hereinafter "Joint Stipulation"], filed on September 21, 2016, in the above-captioned cause. In her Motion, Molina asks the Court to "suppress and exclude from the Government's case-in-chief, any and all evidence obtained as a result of a search of her cell phone," which was conducted at the border. Mot. 1.

The facts surrounding the search of Molina's cell phone, and for the purpose of adjudicating her Motion, are undisputed, set forth in the parties' Joint Stipulation, and recounted verbatim below.¹ After reviewing the Joint Stipulation and arguments proffered by the parties, the Court is of the opinion that Molina's Motion should be denied for the reasons that follow.

I. STIPULATED FACTS

"On July 12, 2016, Molina attempted to enter the United States from Mexico on foot, using a pedestrian lane at the Bridge of the Americas Port of Entry in El Paso, Texas. Molina is a resident, citizen, and national of Mexico.

"At the primary inspection lane, Molina placed her suitcase onto an x-ray machine for inspection. Customs and Border Protection (‘CBP’) Officer Laura Ortega performed an x-ray scan of the suitcase and detected anomalies. Molina's suitcase was selected for inspection and CBP Officer William Long removed the suitcase from the belt and began to question Molina. Molina claimed ownership of the suitcase and unlocked it for inspection[;] moreover, when asked if she had anything to declare, Molina responded in the negative, and stated she only had clothing in the suitcase.

"Molina was referred to a secondary inspection area, where CBP Officer Homero Vega questioned Molina about her travel. Molina stated she was coming from her brother's house in Juarez, Mexico. Molina stated she delivered clothing that she had purchased for her brother to sell in Juarez, Mexico. Molina claimed ownership of the suitcase and stated she had purchased it in Tijuana, Mexico. Molina stated she had crossed with the suitcase on multiple occasions, with no problems. Finally, Molina stated she flew to El Paso, Texas, on July 12, and her plan was to cross back into the United States to fly back to Tijuana, Mexico, because it was ‘better and easier to fly in the United States.'

"CBP Officer Long opened Molina's suitcase and noticed modifications. Molina's suitcase was re-scanned through the x-ray, and the anomaly was located covered by electrical tape. CBP Officer Long discovered a hidden compartment, and extracted a white crystal substance that tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine. Additionally, a CBP Canine enforcement officer utilized a narcotics detecting dog, which alerted to a narcotic odor emitting from the suitcase. The weight of the methamphetamine was approximately 4.32 kilograms.

"After discovering the methamphetamine, CBP Officers contacted Special Agents from the Department of Homeland Security. Special Agents Oscar Flores and Jesus DeAlba responded to the Port of Entry. After being advised of her Miranda rights by the agents, Molina affirmatively waived her rights and agreed to give the agents a statement without the benefit of counsel. Molina told the agents the suitcase belonged to her, and that she had no explanation for how drugs got into the suitcase. Molina stated there was no way someone could have loaded the drugs into her suitcase without her knowledge.

"Molina stated she flew into El Paso from San Diego and immediately took a taxi to Juarez to visit her brother. However, she could not provide the address in Mexico where her brother lived. Molina stated she did not see her brother because he knew she was coming, and that she merely needed to drop off clothing to his residence. Molina stated she was returning to El Paso because she was intending to fly back to Tijuana, Mexico, and she had to be at work on July 13, 2016, at 5:00 A.M. Molina advised that she had not purchased tickets for this flight yet. Molina stated she spent approximately 40 minutes total in Mexico.

"Agents then confronted Molina about her travel plans and work schedule. Specifically, Agents asked Molina why she needed to pack additional personal clothing if she only intended to stay in Mexico for 40 minutes and immediately fly back home for work. Molina had no response. Agents asked Molina to try and explain her story because, to them, it did not make sense, at which point Molina terminated the interview by requesting to speak with an attorney.

"At this point Agents conducted a review of her phone, viewing the Uber and WhatsApp applications. Agents did not ask for, nor receive consent from Molina to search her phone. When viewing the WhatsApp² application, Agents observed, recorded, and translated the following exchange:

Molina advised RAUL that she was headed to El Paso, and requested RAUL to send her the information for the Uber. MOLINA advise[d] RAUL that she had arrived in El Paso. RAUL responded that he sent her the information for the Uber. RAUL sent a picture [o]f a credit card, front and back, and told MOLINA to use that credit card information to pay for Uber. RAUL sent information regarding a hotel located in Juarez, Mexico. RAUL directed MOLINA to Hotel Suites in Colonia Playas, Room # 10, and advised MOLINA that the stuff is located there. MOLINA advised RAUL that she arrived to the room but no one was there. RAUL stated he w[ould] get a hold of them. MOLINA then responded that the guy was asleep and he opened the door. RAUL sent another picture of a Southwest Airlines flight itinerary. The itinerary listed MOLINA as the passenger of a flight departing El Paso at 5:15 P.M. with a final destination of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. MOLINA advised RAUL that she got the stuff and was headed back to El Paso.

"Subsequent to the cursory review of the pone, agents seized the phone and have maintained custody of the phone. To date, agents have not conducted a forensic analysis, or ‘dump,’ of the phone and all of its data." Joint Stip. 1–4.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Fourth Amendment provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons ... and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause." U.S. Const. amend. IV. "As the text makes clear, the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness." Riley v. California , ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2482, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Supreme Court has determined that "where a search is undertaken by law enforcement officials to discover evidence of criminal wrongdoing ... reasonableness generally requires the obtaining of a judicial warrant." Id. (quoting Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 653, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995) ). "In the absence of a warrant, a search is reasonable only if it falls within a specific exception to the warrant requirement." Id. ; see also United States v. Pickett, 598 F.3d 231, 234 (5th Cir. 2010).

"The border search is one such exception, and it has a ‘history as old as the fourth amendment itself.’ " Pickett, 598 F.3d at 234 (quoting United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 619, 97 S.Ct. 1972, 52 L.Ed.2d 617 (1977) ); see also United States v. Newell, 506 F.2d 401, 404 (5th Cir. 1975) ("The so-called border search has long been recognized as an exception to both the warrant and probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution."). Supreme Court jurisprudence on this border search exception demonstrates that it is predicated upon "[t]he Government's interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects," which "is at its zenith at the international border." United States v. Flores–Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 152, 124 S.Ct. 1582, 158 L.Ed.2d 311 (2004).

"Congress, since the beginning of our Government, ‘has granted the Executive plenary authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at the border, without probable cause or warrant, in order to regulate the collection of duties and to prevent the introduction of contraband into this country.’ " Id. (quoting United States v. Montoya de Hernandez , 473 U.S. 531, 537, 105 S.Ct. 3304, 87 L.Ed.2d 381 (1985) ). "Historically, such broad powers have been necessary to prevent smuggling and to prevent prohibited articles from entry." Ramsey , 431 U.S. at 619, 97 S.Ct. 1972. "Time and again, [the Supreme Court has stated] that searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border." Flores–Montano , 541 U.S. at 152–53, 124 S.Ct. 1582. This is because there is a "longstanding concern for the protection of the integrity of the border." Montoya de Hernandez , 473 U.S. at 538, 105 S.Ct. 3304. In sum, "[i]t is axiomatic that the United States, as sovereign, has the inherent authority to protect, and a paramount interest in protecting, its territorial integrity." Flores–Montano , 541 U.S. at 153, 124 S.Ct. 1582.

"Balanced against the sovereign's interests at the border are the Fourth Amendment rights of [an...