United States v. Pena-Armenta

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MARYSOL PENA-ARMENTA and JESUS NOEL RAMOS QUINTERO, Defendants.

Case No. 2:19-CR-00348-DAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

December 23, 2020

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

Judge Dale A. Kimball

INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the court on several motions from Defendant Jesus Noel Ramos Quintero ("Quintero") and Defendant Marysol Pena-Armenta¹ ("Pena-Armenta") (collectively "Defendants"): Defendant Quintero's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 60); Defendant Quintero's Motion to Suppress Statements and Evidence Derived as a Result of Violations of Sixth and Fifth Amendment Rights (ECF No. 61); Defendant Quintero's Motion to Suppress Evidence Derived as a Result of an Unlawful Search and Seizure (ECF No. 62); Defendant Pena-Armenta's Motion to Suppress Evidence Derived as a Result of an Invalid Search and Seizure (ECF No. 52); Defendant Pena-Armenta's Motion to Suppress Statements Derived in Violation of the Sixth and Fifth Amendment Rights (ECF No. 53); and Defendant Pena-Armenta's Motionto Dismiss for Outrageous Government Conduct or in the Alternative to Suppress Statements (ECF No. 55.) On November 4, 2020, the court held an evidentiary hearing on these motions. At the evidentiary hearing, Kelsy B. Young represented the United States, Erlinda O. Johnson and Alexander Ramos represented Pena-Armenta, and Brett R. Parkinson represented Quintero. At the close of the evidentiary hearing, the court directed the parties to file simultaneous briefs by November 25, 2020. All parties timely filed their briefs. On December 2, 2020, the court held closing arguments on these motions and took the matter under advisement. After carefully considering the memoranda and other materials submitted by the parties and the facts and law relevant to these motions, the court enters the following Memorandum Decision and Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Motel Surveillance

On August 1, 2019, officers with the Utah County Major Crimes Task Force in Provo, Utah, were conducting surveillance at the Little Suites Inn. (Ev. Hrg. Tr. at 8-9) [hereinafter Tr.] During the surveillance, Officer Uipi was located in a parking lot across a four-lane road to the east of the motel. (Id. at 13.) Other officers were located in a parking lot across a two-lane road to the south. (Id.)

At some time in the late afternoon, the officers observed Defendants and one other individual leaving room 204. (Id. at 14, 43.) Defendant Quintero was carrying a "colorful bag." (Id.) According to Uipi, the three individuals were talking with each other "like something had gone wrong or something was wrong by the way they were animatedly talking to each other." (Id. at 18.) As the three individuals crossed the parking lot, they approached two vehicles, a BMW and a Ford. (Id. at 17-18, 21.) One of the Defendants placed the colorful bag into the trunk of the BMW. (Id. at 18.) After one of the Defendants placed the bag into the BMW, Pena-Armenta and the third individual got into the BMW and Quintero got into the Ford. (Id. at 22.) Both cars then drove to a Home Depot parking lot less than one minute away. (Id. at 19.) Some of the surveilling officers followed. (Id. at 19.)

At the Home Depot parking lot, the two vehicles did not move or meet with anyone. (Id. at 46.) While Defendants were parked at Home Depot lot, the officers at the motel observed emergency medical services ("EMS") and a uniformed police officer arrive at the motel and proceed to room 204—the room Defendants left just moments earlier. (Id. at 23.) At some point before interacting with Defendants, the surveilling officers discovered that the EMS responded to room 204 due to a drug overdose. (Id.) The EMS successfully treated the overdose and transported the individual to the hospital. (Id. at 24.)

Shortly after EMS transported the overdosed patient to the hospital, Defendants and the other individual returned to the motel parking lot in the Ford—leaving the BMW at Home Depot. (Id. at 24.) After talking for a short time in the motel parking lot, the three individuals returned to the Home Depot to retrieve the BMW and return it to the motel. (Id.) Once the two cars were parked side by side in the motel parking lot, Pena-Armenta moved the colorful bag from the BMW to the Ford. (Id. at 24-25.) As Pena-Armenta moved the bag, Officer Uipi testified that Defendants were looking around "suspiciously." (Id.) After the bag was moved into the Ford, Defendants and the third individual got into the BMW and left the motel parking lot. (Id. at 25-26.) Quintero was driving, Pena-Armenta was seated in the back seat on the passenger side, and the third individual was in the front passenger seat. (Id. at 27.)

Stopping the BMW & Calling for the K-9

Defendants were not able to drive more than a few hundred yards north before the undercover officers pulled over the BMW. (Id. at 26, 43, 59-60.) Officer Uipi testified that thereason for the stop was an inoperable taillight. (Id. at 26, 70.) In fact, on August 5, 2019, Officer Uipi wrote in his report that the inoperable taillight was the reason for the stop. (Id. at 70.) At the evidentiary hearing, however, it was clearly established that the taillight was, in fact, operable. (Id. at 49-50, 141-42.) Officer Uipi's report does not list any other reason for the stop. (Id. at 70.)

Up to this point, the timeline is clear and the facts are relatively undisputed. It is at this point, however, that the timeline becomes unclear and the parties have major disputes over the facts. With that in mind, the court finds that it must rely only upon Officer Uipi's testimony as supported by the body camera videos because Officer Uipi's testimony is inconsistent and unclear about the timeline. Additionally, the court will be relying on modified versions of the timestamps contained in the body camera footage admitted as Exhibits F and K during the evidentiary hearing. These timestamps confusingly display the date and time as, for example, "2019-08-02 T04:45:57z." (See Ex. F at 00:14, Ev. Hrg, Nov.4, 2020; see also Ev. Hrg., Ex. K, Nov. 4, 2020) [hereinafter Ex. F and Ex. K]. The court was initially inclined to completely disregard these timestamps as unreliable since they seem to indicate the wrong day at 4:45 in the morning. However, upon the court's review of the body camera footage, it appears that just the date and hour are incorrect. (Ex. F at 00:14.) At 14 seconds into the video contained in Exhibit F, the squad car's center console time is visible, showing 10:44—just one minute behind the timestamp. (Id.) Thus, the court finds that the timestamp is reasonably reliable if modified to reflect the accurate hour and date. Accordingly, the court will treat the timestep "T04:45:00" as meaning 10:45 p.m., "T05:00:00" as 11:00 p.m., and so on. Lastly, since the timestamps are in sync between both body cameras, the court will treat Exhibit K's timestamp in the same manner.

With the issue of the timestamps cleared up, the court can now make factual findings about the timeline of events after Defendants left the motel in the BMW. Of the most concern are the inconsistencies about when the stop happened and how long after the stop that the K-9 unit arrived. Officer Uipi's testimony on these matters is anything but clear or consistent.

Turning to what time the officers stopped Defendants, Officer Uipi was very adamant and confident that the officers initiated the stop around 9:40 p.m. (Tr. at 42-43.) The court finds it helpful to quote this portion of the transcript where Ms. Johnson asks Officer Uipi about the time of the stop. Referring to Officer Uipi's police report,² Ms. Johnson asks:

Q. And in the first paragraph, about seven lines down, you indicated about 9:40 p.m. detectives observed individuals exiting room 204. Do you disagree with that, sir?

A. I would say that wouldn't be the first. We had observed him prior to that.

Q. But you would agree with me that nowhere in your report do you indicate that, prior to 9:40 p.m., you first observed Mr. Ramos Quintero?

A. Yes. It must have been a typo.

Q. So the question, Detective, would be, is that you first observed activity in room 204 coming in and out of room 204 about 9:40 p.m.?

A. No. That—9:40 p.m. was around the time we were at—doing the traffic stop.

Q. 9:40 p.m. was the time you were doing the traffic stop, is that your testimony?

A. Yeah. That would have been around the time we were doing the traffic stop. It was more towards the night.

(Tr. at 42.) Officer Uipi unequivocally and confidently testified that his report contained a typo and the stop began around 9:40 p.m. despite what is indicated in his police report.³ (Id.) This oneassertion that the stop happened at 9:40 conflicts with three other portions of his testimony. That is not to say that those other times are consistent either.

Just a few minutes after establishing the time of the stop, Officer Uipi agreed with Ms. Johnson that "it would be fair to say that [the stop] had been ongoing for about ten minutes" when a uniformed officer wearing a body camera showed up to help with the stop. (Tr. at 52.) The video recorded from this officer's body camera was admitted as Exhibit F during the evidentiary hearing. (Id.) This officer arrived around 10:45, meaning that the stop would have occurred around 10:35. (Ex. F. at 00:01.) Earlier in his testimony, however, Officer Uipi stated that he called for the dog "two to three minutes" into the stop "and the K-9 responded from Orem. To get from Orem to Provo, approximately it takes about . . . 8 to 10 minutes to arrive on scene." (Tr. at 32.) Working backward from when the dog arrived and according to this version of Officer Uipi's testimony, the stop would have occurred around 10:45 p.m. (Ex. K at 00:02.)

At the very end of his testimony, Officer Uipi gives yet another time for when the stop occurred. Within this portion of Officer Uipi's testimony, he not only is inconsistent about the time the stop occurred but...