-
USCA1 Opinion
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 92-2356
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
EFRAIN NU EZ,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Thomas R. Lincoln, with whom Law Offices of Thomas R. Lincoln was _________________ ________________________________
on brief for appellant.
Esther Castro-Schmidt, Assistant United States Attorney, with _____________________
whom Charles E. Fitzwilliam, United States Attorney, and Jos A. _______________________ _______
Quiles Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, were on brief for ________________
appellee.
____________________
March 24, 1994
____________________
CYR, Circuit Judge. After a two-day jury trial, Efrain CYR, Circuit Judge. _____________
Nu ez, a Dominican national, was convicted of possessing approxi-
mately two kilograms of cocaine, with intent to distribute, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). On appeal, Nu ez challenges
the district court's refusal to suppress the contraband obtained
during his detention by the United States Customs Service
(Customs) at Luis Marin International Airport in Carolina, Puerto
Rico, on Sunday, May 24, 1992.
I I
BACKGROUND BACKGROUND __________
A. Airport Detention A. Airport Detention _________________
The facts are unremarkable up until the point in time
approximately 3:55 p.m. when Nu ez was first observed by
two Customs agents, Olga Silva and Victor Ramos, who were "pro-
filing passengers" near the American Airlines ticket counter.
After Nu ez attracted their attention because he appeared to be
walking stiffly, the agents followed him toward the American
Airlines concourse, and observed as he cleared the security
checkpoint without incident.1 As Nu ez placed his carry-on bag
on the floor before presenting his passport at the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS) checkpoint, Customs Agents Ramos
and Silva noticed several bulges around his midsection and
____________________
1Nu ez walked through the metal detector and passed his
carry-on bag through the x-ray machine.
2
observed that he had difficulty bending. At this point, Silva
left to summon Senior Customs Investigator Isidro Rivera Sanchez
(Rivera).
At approximately 4:10 p.m., Rivera approached Nu ez at
the INS checkpoint, identified himself as a Customs agent, and
posed a series of perfunctory questions. At one point, when
Nu ez bent down to show Rivera his carry-on bag, Rivera observed
the "bulges" seen by Silva and Ramos minutes before, and decided
to question him further. Rivera escorted Nu ez to a room off the
main concourse. Seeking to ensure that the "bulges" were not
explosives that might have gone undetected at the security
checkpoint, Rivera conducted a "pat-down frisk" which revealed
that four packages had been "adapted" to fit around Nu ez's
midsection. Finding no wires, Rivera informed Nu ez that he
would be detained by Customs, then conducted him to a secure 8' x
8' holding room in the customs enclosure.
As the case wended its way through the Customs chain of
command, two more Customs agents became involved: Senior Super-
visory Agent Carlos Ruiz Hernandez (Ruiz) and his supervisor,
Senior Agent Ben Garcia (Garcia). When Garcia arrived on the
scene, he directed Ruiz to arrange for a drug-detection dog to be
brought to the customs enclosure. Later, Garcia and Ruiz went to
the holding room, where Garcia informed Nu ez that he was sus-
pected of smuggling contraband and that the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) was being requested to secure a warrant to
search his person. At approximately 5:30 to 5:45 p.m, Garcia
3
administered Miranda warnings to Nu ez. At approximately 5:45 to _______
6:00 p.m., Ruiz attempted to arrange for a drug-detection dog.2
The situation inside the holding room changed drama-
tically as Ruiz was attending Nu ez while awaiting the arrival of
the drug-detection dog. Suddenly, Nu ez spontaneously informed
Ruiz that he had worked as an auto mechanic in New York but that
work was scarce and "times are tough you have to make a buck
any way you can." As Nu ez spoke, he slowly began unbuttoning
his shirt. Sensing that Nu ez was preparing to shed the "bulg-
es," Ruiz decided to "give him the opportunity," and turned away
while continuing to observe surreptitiously. Shortly thereafter,
Ruiz heard a rustling sound and glimpsed a series of movements.
When Ruiz turned toward Nu ez, four packages lay near him on the
floor; it was approximately 6:30 p.m.
Ruiz immediately performed a field test, which indicat-
ed that the packages contained cocaine. Nu ez was arrested. At
Ruiz's instruction, Nu ez removed his unbuttoned shirt, revealing
two girdles and the body imprints left by the packages he had
been carrying around his midsection. When the passive drug-
detection dog finally arrived at approximately 7:00 p.m., it
____________________
2The record is silent as to whether any previous attempt had
been made to obtain a drug-detection dog. The record does
disclose, however, that the only dog available at the airport
that Sunday afternoon, "Oby", was used for luggage screening and
was considered too dangerous for use on a human subject, as it
was trained to claw at the spot where it detected narcotics.
"Zulu," the nearest "passive" drug-detection dog, was kenneled
forty-five minutes from the airport. Zulu and her handler
arrived at the airport at approximately 7:00 p.m., about one-half
hour after Nu ez was formally arrested.
4
"alerted" in the area of Nu ez's midsection where the bulges had
been concealed.
B. District Court Proceedings B. District Court Proceedings __________________________
At a pretrial conference on June 15, 1992, defense
counsel represented that he would move to suppress the contraband
recovered from the floor of the detention room. The district
court accordingly entered a pretrial order pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 12(c), setting June 22 as the deadline for pretrial
motions and July 29 as the trial date. No motion to suppress was
filed within the prescribed period. On July 23, however, six
days before trial, the government informed defense counsel that
it would introduce newly discovered evidence relating to the pre-
arrest admission by Nu ez, which Customs Agent Ruiz only recently
had brought to the prosecutor's attention. See supra at p.4. ___ _____
The next day, five days before trial, defense counsel moved to
suppress both the Nu ez admission and the contraband. The motion ____
simply contended that the contraband was the inadmissible product
of a pretextual investigatory stop, but asserted no challenge
based on the duration of the detention.
On the morning of July 29, 1992, after jury empanel- _____ ____ ________
ment, the district court heard argument on the government's ____
objection based on the untimeliness of the motion to suppress the
contraband. The government argued that the relevant facts had
been known to the defense from the beginning and that any sup-
pression challenge to the contraband had been waived under Fed.
5
R. Crim. P. 12(f).3 Asked to explain the untimeliness of the
motion, defense counsel represented to the court that Nu ez,
against counsel's advice and perhaps without comprehending the
full implications, had instructed counsel not to move to suppress
the contraband but later changed his mind.
Without ruling on the government's waiver claim under
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(f), relating to the untime-
liness of the motion to suppress the contraband, the district
court proceeded to consider the contraband-suppression claim
based on the allegedly pretextual pat-down frisk.4 Near the end _____ __ ___ _________ __________ ________ _____
of the suppression hearing itself, however, defense counsel
insinuated the new contention that the contraband should be
suppressed either on the basis of the pretextual pat-down frisk
or an unconstitutionally prolonged detention.5 The latter
____________________
3Given the timing of its disclosure, however, the government
conceded the timeliness of the motion to suppress the Nu ez
admission to Ruiz. Nu ez has not appealed from the district
court ruling denying the motion to suppress the admission.
4The district court thus tacitly allowed argument and
evidence on the contraband-suppression issue, which it had been
led to understand turned on the allegedly pretextual pat-down __________ ________
frisk, the only claim raised in the motion to suppress the _____ ___ ____ _____ ______ __ ___ ______ __ ________ ___
contraband. __________
5During cross-examination of the Customs agents, defense
counsel elicited testimony relating to the frisk and the ensuing
detention. Then, in a staccato presentation near the end of the
suppression hearing, defense counsel for the first time
briefly injected the claim that the excessive duration of the
detention had tainted the voluntariness of Nu ez' surrender of
the contraband. With the empaneled jury waiting, the district
court simply noted the customs agents' testimony that Nu ez had
been detained pending the issuance of a warrant authorizing the
DEA to search his person. Defense counsel then countered that
the government had presented no evidence that the agents had even
attempted to obtain a warrant. Thereupon, the court's attention
6
theory had neither been raised in the motion to suppress nor at
the post-empanelment argument upon which the district court based
its tacit decision to permit hearing on the contraband-suppres-
sion claim based on the theory that the pat-down frisk was
unconstitutional. See supra notes 4 & 5. As a direct conse- ___ _____
quence of the belated insinuation of the prolonged-detention
claim, the district court's attention was never fairly focused on
the principal contraband-suppression theory presently advanced on
appeal.6
II II
DISCUSSION DISCUSSION __________
A. Duration of Detention A. Duration of Detention _____________________
We first consider whether the suppression theory
clearly asserted for the first time on appeal that the surren-
der of the contraband was the product of an unconstitutionally
prolonged detention was waived. Criminal Rule 12(f) provides:
"Failure by a party to raise defenses or objections or to make
requests which must be made prior to trial, at the time set by ____ __ ____ _____ __ _____
the court pursuant to subdivision (c), or prior to any extension
____________________
was once again abruptly drawn back to the legality of the pat-
down frisk. Ultimately, the court denied the motion to suppress,
in its entirety, without stating any "essential findings" relat-
ing to the duration of the detention as contemplated by Fed. R.
Crim. P. 12(e).
6The principal by-products of these scattershot defense
tactics are the absence of factual findings on matters essential
to reliable appellate review of the district court's ruling that
the surrender of the contraband was voluntary, and the absence of
any ruling or finding whatever as to the reasonableness of the
detention itself. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(e). ___
7
thereof made by the court, shall constitute waiver thereof, but
the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver."
Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(f) (emphasis added).7 See United States v. ___ _____________
Gomez, 770 F.2d 251, 253 (1st Cir. 1985) (Rule 12 implements an _____
"important social policy"; waiver results absent compliance); see ___
also Brooks v. United States, 416 F.2d 1044, 1047-48 (5th Cir. ____ ______ _____________
1969) (same), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 840 (1970). The record ____ ______
reflects that the district court neither found "cause" nor
granted relief from waiver under Rule 12(f).8
____________________
7Rule 12(b)(3) mandates that all motions to suppress be
presented prior to trial; Rule 12(c) empowers the court, by rule
or order, to prescribe time limits for filing Rule 12 motions.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3), (c).
8At the hearing reluctantly convened by the trial judge
following jury empanelment, defense counsel obliquely raised
arguments altogether distinct from those presented in the motion
to suppress the contraband. See supra notes 4 & 5. We have made ___ _____
it crystal clear that "[l]egal arguments cannot be interchanged
at will." United States v. Lilly, ___ F.3d ___, ___ (1st Cir. _____________ _____
1994) [No. 93-1577, slip op. at 5 (Jan. 4, 1994)]; United States _____________
v. Dietz, 950 F.2d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 1991) ("We repeatedly have _____
ruled . . . that arguments not seasonably addressed to the trial __________ _________
court may not be raised for the first time in an appellate
venue.") (emphasis added). See also United States v. Bailey, 675 ___ ____ _____________ ______
F.2d 1292, 1294 (D.C. Cir.) (similar), cert. denied sub nom. _____ ______ ___ ____
Walker v. United States, 459 U.S. 853 (1982); accord, United ______ _____________ ______ ______
States v. Dewitt, 946 F.2d 1497, 1502 (10th Cir. 1991) ("[W]aiver ______ ______
provision applies not only to the failure to make a pretrial
motion, but also to the failure to include a particular argument __________ ________
in the motion.") (emphasis added), cert. denied sub nom. Rison v. _____ ______ ___ ____ _____
United States, 112 S. Ct. 1233 (1992). The Trojan Horse tactic _____________
employed by the defense below virtually ensured that its
suppression claim based on the duration of the detention would _____ __ ___ ________ __ ___ _________
escape serious focus from the government and the court at the
post-empanelment suppression hearing, see supra notes 4, 5 & 6, ___ _____
thereby circumventing the time bar fixed in the pretrial order,
see supra note 7, the "cause" showing required for relief from ___ _____
waiver under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(f), and the government's right
to compel resolution of the contraband-suppression claim prior to
trial in order to preserve its right to pretrial review under 18
U.S.C. 3731. See note 9 infra; see also United States v. ___ _____ ___ ____ _____________
8
Even though appellate courts on occasion have implied
relief from waiver under Rule 12(f) where the trial court pro-
ceeds to address the suppression issue on the merits, see, e.g., ___ ____
United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1389 (9th Cir. 1988), ______________ _______
cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034 (1989); contra United States v. ____ ______ ______ ______________
Oldfield, 859 F.2d 392, 396-98 (6th Cir. 1988), we have not had ________
occasion, nor are we disposed, sua sponte, to conjure relief from ___ ______
waiver under Rule 12(f) in circumstances where no cause for
relief appears and the district court record does not enable
reliable appellate review on the merits.
First, it would make Rules 12(b)(3) and (f) meaningless
were an unexplained change of mind on the part of the defendant
deemed "cause" for relief from waiver, following jury empanel- _________ ____ ________
ment, under a rule fundamental to orderly pretrial procedure. In ____
this vein, it is instructive to contrast the circumstances
surrounding the late requests to suppress the contraband and the
Nu ez admission. The government's failure to disclose the Nu ez
admission until shortly before trial provided a paradigmatic
example of "cause" for relief from waiver under Rule 12(f). See, ___
e.g., United States v. Lamela, 942 F.2d 100, 104 (1st Cir. 1991) ____ _____________ ______
(holding that a Rule 12(b)(2) motion first asserted at trial was
not time-barred where the relevant information did not become
available until trial). On the other hand, no extrinsic justifi-
cation whatever is suggested for the belated request to suppress
the contraband due to the duration of the detention even though
____________________
Barletta, 644 F.2d 50, 54 (1st Cir. 1981). ________
9
all the relevant facts were known to the defense from the outset. ____ ___ ______
Instead, the untimeliness is attributed exclusively to Nu ez's
original decision not to challenge the contraband. In these
circumstances, we believe something more than an unexplained
change of mind must be shown to warrant relief from a Rule 12(f)
waiver brought on by the defendant's tactical decision. See ___
United States v. Gonzales, 749 F.2d 1329, 1336 (9th Cir. 1984) ______________ ________
(upholding denial of relief from waiver under Rule 12(f) after
defendant changed mind about whether to move to suppress).
Second, Rule 12 itself provides that the court shall
not defer a pretrial motion for determination at trial, even for
"good cause" shown, "if a party's right to appeal is adversely
affected." Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(e). "Once a jury has been sworn
and jeopardy attaches, the government loses its right to appeal
an adverse ruling on suppression." United States v. Taylor, 792 _____________ ______
F.2d 1019, 1025 (11th Cir. 1986) (scope of discretion to grant
relief under Rule 12(f) narrows once jeopardy has attached),
citing 18 U.S.C. 3731,9 cert. denied sub nom. King v. United ______ _____ ______ ___ ____ ____ ______
States, 481 U.S. 1030 (1987). See United States v. Barletta, 644 ______ ___ _____________ ________
F.2d 50, 54 (1st Cir. 1981) (Coffin, C.J.) ("[D]efendants'
motions to suppress, based on the exclusionary rule, are at the
____________________
9The relevant portion of 18 U.S.C. 3731 reads as follows:
An appeal by the United States shall lie to a
court of appeals from a decision or order of a district
courts [sic] suppressing or excluding evidence or
requiring the return of seized property in a criminal
proceeding, not made after the defendant has been put
in jeopardy and before the verdict or finding on an
indictment or information . . . . (footnote omitted).
10
heart of the legislative purpose in providing government appeal
rights."). On the other hand, the defense tactic employed below
would have insulated from pretrial review, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
3731, any exclusionary ruling based on the duration of the
detention. As our court clearly explained in Barletta, 644 F.2d ________
at 54-55:
Were a defendant able to delay such a motion
until trial, he could prevent the government
from appealing, thus frustrating the central
purpose of 3731. It is for this reason
that motions to suppress motions based on
the exclusionary rule alone must be made
by a defendant prior to trial or not at all,
and for this reason as well that a district
court ordinarily may not defer a ruling on a
defendant's motion to suppress. We agree
with the district court that such rulings and
the government's ability to appeal them are
at the core of 12(e).
Under these circumstances, therefore, relief from waiver of the
Nu ez suppression claim based on the duration of the detention
will not be implied. See id. at 54; see also, e.g., United ___ ___ ___ ____ ____ ______
States v. Gomez-Benabe, 985 F.2d 607, 611-12 (1st Cir. 1993) ______ ____________
(finding Rule 12(f) waiver and concluding that: "[i]t is unneces-
sary to address the substantive aspects of appellant's arguments
[that should have been raised in a pretrial motion to suppress]
since appellant has totallyfailed to put the matterin issue.").10
____________________
10Few courts have squarely considered whether a Rule 12(f)
waiver obviates "plain error" review under Rule 52(b). See, ___
e.g., United States v. Howard, 998 F.2d 42, 52 (2d Cir. 1993); ____ ______________ ______
but see Gomez-Benabe, 985 F.2d at 611-12. A number of courts ___ ___ ____________
have proceeded with "plain error" review, however, without dis-
cussing the impact of the Rule 12(f) waiver. See, e.g., United ___ ____ ______
States v. Gio, 7 F.3d 1279, 1285 (7th Cir. 1993) (severance claim ______ ___
waived under Rule 12(f) reviewed for plain error); United States _____________
v. Milian-Rodriguez, 828 F.2d 679, 684 (11th Cir. 1987) (same, ________________
11
B. Pat-down Frisk B. Pat-down Frisk ______________
Lastly, Nu ez argues that the pat-down frisk conducted
by Customs was pretextual a search for contraband rather than
a security frisk for weapons and that the contraband subse-
quently recovered by Customs therefore should have been sup-
pressed under Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963). _________ _____________
Nu ez insists that the Customs agents could not have apprehended
____________________
motion to suppress), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1054 (1988). In a _____ ______
different context, we have suggested that "plain error" review
may be required, notwithstanding waiver. See, e.g., United ___ ____ ______
States v. Cyr, 712 F.2d 729, 735 n.4 (1st Cir. 1983) (noting that ______ ___
reversal on severance claim waived under Rule 12(f) would be _________
"mandated only if there is plain error.") (dicta). In any event,
our precedent does not require "plain error" review in circum-
stances where reliable review has been rendered impossible by
inadequate development at the district court level and the
exclusionary-rule suppression issue pressed on appeal was not
broached below until after jeopardy attached. See Barletta, 644 ___ ________
F.2d at 54-55. See also United States v. Davenport, 986 F.2d ___ ____ _____________ _________
1047, 1048 (7th Cir. 1993).
The record in this case would not enable a reliable appel-
late determination as to the reasonableness of the Custom's
agents' actions in light of all the relevant circumstances
prevailing at the time. See, e.g., United States v. Quinn, 815 ___ ____ _____________ _____
F.2d 153, 157-58 (1st Cir. 1987). Although the record certainly
is susceptible to the interpretation that approximately two hours
elapsed before Nu ez was formally arrested, it is neither "obvi-
ous" nor "clear," see United States v. Olano, ___ U.S. ___, ___, ___ _____________ _____
113 S. Ct. 1770, 1777 (1993), for instance, that the actual
circumstances confronting the officers did not render the deten-
tion reasonable; that the detention did not constitute a reason-
able border detention; or, indeed, that the officers did not have
probable cause at some point prior to the formal arrest. Thus,
Nu ez has not met the burden of proving plain error, even assum-
ing such review were appropriate in the wake of the deliberate
Rule 12(f) waiver. See United States v. Olivier-Diaz, ___ F.3d ___ _____________ ____________
___, ___ (1st Cir. 1993) [No. 93-1306, slip op. at 11 (December
22, 1993)] ("[E]rror cannot be 'clear' or 'obvious' unless the
desired factual finding is the only one supported by the record
below."); United States v. Petrozziello, 548 F.2d 20, 22 (1st _____________ ____________
Cir. 1977) ("Appellant's failure to raise the issue below means
that a critical factual dispute remains unsolved. We cannot find
plain error on this silent record.").
12
a genuine security risk warranting a pat-down frisk for weapons
at the INS checkpoint because he had just passed through the
security checkpoint without incident. See supra note 1. Fur- ___ _____
thermore, he argues, the Customs agents would have searched his
carry-on bag as well were they genuinely concerned for their
personal security as the government asserts.11
The trial court is required to assess "the totality of
the circumstances" confronting the officers, rather than dissect-
ing the evidence and weighing the individual components. United ______
States v. Trullo, 809 F.2d 108, 111 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 482 ______ ______ _____ ______
U.S. 916 (1987). We review its factual findings under the "clear
error" standard, United States v. Kiendra, 663 F.2d 349, 351 (1st _____________ _______
Cir. 1981); see also United States v. Walker, 924 F.2d 1, 3 (1st ___ ____ _____________ ______
Cir. 1991) (pat-down frisk), and will uphold the suppression
ruling if supported by "any reasonable view of the evidence,"
United States v. Young, 877 F.2d 1099, 1100 (1st Cir. 1989) ______________ _____
(citing cases).
The district court based its findings principally on
the agents' testimony concerning the reasons for the pat-down
frisk. Trial court credibility determinations are prime candi-
dates for appellate deference. See United States v. Brum, 948 ___ _____________ ____
F.2d 817, 819 (1st Cir. 1991); cf. Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 ___ ________ _____________
____________________
11Agent Rivera testified that there was no need to search ______
the carry-on bag at the security checkpoint, because the officers
would have Nu ez within their direct physical control and, unlike
a weapon concealed on his person, he would not be able to remove
a gun from his carry-on bag before the officers could subdue him.
We believe Rivera's testimony was sufficient to dispel the
misgivings raised by Nu ez.
13
U.S. 564, 575 (1985). The suppression hearing transcript dis-
closes abundant support for the district court finding that the
pat-down frisk was based on a reasonable concern, on the part of
the agents, for their own security and for the safety of airline
passengers.12 As the record evidence supports the district
court's reasoned conclusion, there was no error.
Affirmed. Affirmed. ________
____________________
12Nu ez's nervous behavior, the stiff manner in which he
walked, the difficulty in bending, and the bulges underneath his
clothing were sufficient to raise a reasonable suspicion in the
minds of experienced law enforcement officers that Nu ez was
carrying contraband. See United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 ___ _____________ _______
(1989) (totality of circumstances must be considered in deter-
mining whether there was "reasonable suspicion" for Terry stop, _____
which must be based on "articulable facts that criminal activity
'may be afoot,' even if the officer lacks probable cause.") In
addition, the district court specifically credited testimony that
certain explosive devices could have gone undetected when Nu ez
passed through the airport security checkpoint. Considering that
these events took place in the environs of an international
airport where drug trafficking has been a common occurrence in
recent years, see, e.g., United States v. Villanueva, ___ F.3d ___ ____ ______________ __________
___, ___ (1st Cir. 1994) [No. 93-1502, slip op. at 5 (Feb. 3,
1994)] (noting history of area where defendants were stopped is
relevant factor in "reasonable suspicion" calculus), we believe
the district court supportably found that these agents reasonably
harbored a justifiable concern for their personal safety and/or
the safety of airline passengers, sufficient to warrant the pat-
down frisk for weapons and for any explosives which may have
passed undetected through the INS checkpoint.
14
Document Info
Docket Number： 92-2356
Filed Date： 3/25/1994
Precedential Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/21/2015