US v. Perez-Diaz

Filing

OPINION issued by Jeffrey R. Howard, Chief Appellate Judge; Juan R. Torruella, Appellate Judge and William J. Kayatta , Jr., Appellate Judge. Published. [15-1977]

Case: 15-1977

Document: 00117113855

Page: 1

Date Filed: 02/03/2017

Entry ID: 6067167

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 15-1977
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
ÁNGEL LUIS PÉREZ-DÍAZ,
Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Jay A. García-Gregory, U.S. District Judge]

Before
Howard, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Kayatta, Circuit Judges.

Andrew S. McCutcheon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, with
whom Eric Alexander Vos, Federal Public Defender, and Vivianne M.
Marrero, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Supervisor, Appeals
Section, were on brief, for appellant.
Marshal D. Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney, with
whom Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United States Attorney,
Mariana E. Bauzá-Almonte, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief,
Appellate Division, and Juan Carlos Reyes-Ramos, Assistant United
States Attorney, were on brief, for appellee.

February 3, 2017

Case: 15-1977

Document: 00117113855

TORRUELLA,

Page: 2

Circuit

Date Filed: 02/03/2017

Judge.

Ángel

Luis

Entry ID: 6067167

Pérez-Díaz

("Pérez") was convicted of possession of child pornography in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) and sentenced to seventyeight months of imprisonment and ten years of supervised release.
Pérez pled guilty and conditioned his guilty plea on preserving
his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to
suppress.

In this motion to suppress, Pérez had alleged that the

search and seizure of computers and other items from his apartment
violated the Fourth Amendment.

The district court held two

evidentiary

a

hearings

and

issued

Report

and

Recommendation

("R&R") after each hearing, both times denying the motion to
suppress.
arguing

Pérez now appeals the denial of his motion to suppress,
that

FBI

agents

violated

the

Fourth

Amendment

by

trespassing on the curtilage of his home, entering his apartment
without his consent, and illegally seizing his property before
obtaining a search warrant.

Because the district court's factual

findings do not support Pérez's contentions -- and we find no clear
error in these factual findings -- we reject Pérez arguments and
affirm the district court.
I.

Background

In November 2010, FBI agents conducted an undercover
online session through which they downloaded child pornography.
The I.P. address of the internet user from whom they downloaded

-2-

Case: 15-1977

Document: 00117113855

Page: 3

Date Filed: 02/03/2017

Entry ID: 6067167

the pornography led them to the former family home of Pérez (the
"Family Home").

On April 29, 2011, the FBI agents executed a

search warrant on the Family Home.

The FBI agents spoke to Pérez's

wife and children at the Family Home, and learned that Pérez had
recently moved out.

Pérez's fourteen-year-old son told one of the

FBI agents that he saw Pérez looking at pornography on Pérez's
computer before Pérez moved out.

Pérez's wife told the FBI agents

where Pérez presently lived and what kind of car he drove, and
informed the agents that Pérez worked as a police officer for the
Puerto

Rico

Police

Department.

Upon

obtaining

Pérez's

new

address, the FBI agents traveled to his apartment, where they
determined the car outside the apartment belonged to Pérez.
The parties dispute the facts surrounding the subsequent
events.

Based on the testimony of the FBI agents, the agents

entered the apartment building property through the back gate,
which did not require force to open.

Two of the four FBI agents,

led by Special Agent Tomás Ortiz, initiated a knock-and-talk1 by
knocking on the door to Pérez's apartment.

Pérez answered and

talked with the agents through the door for two minutes, and then
allowed the agents to enter.

Agent Ortiz asked Pérez if he could

1

A knock-and-talk is an investigative procedure where "officers
who have not yet secured a warrant go to investigate a suspected
crime and determine whether the suspect will cooperate." United
States v. Paneto, 661 F.3d 709, 712 (1st Cir. 2011).
-3-

Case: 15-1977

Document: 00117113855

Page: 4

Date Filed: 02/03/2017

Entry ID: 6067167

ask him some questions; Pérez responded in the affirmative, and
showed them into the kitchen.
In the kitchen, the agents asked Pérez about his computer
use.

He stated he searched for pornography on his computer, and

that any accidentally viewed child pornography would be on the
hard drive of a broken desktop computer.
accidentally

downloaded

child

When asked if he ever

pornography,

Pérez

stated

yes.

Pérez led the agents to the living room closet, where he took out
a ten-year-old hard drive and gave it to one of the agents,
attempting to pass it off as the hard drive of the above-mentioned
desktop computer.

The agents noticed a laptop on the floor of the

living room and asked Pérez if he used that laptop at his prior
residence (the Family Home where his wife and children still
resided) and may have inadvertently downloaded or watched child
pornography on it.

Pérez responded that he had used the laptop

at his prior residence, but that he had neither downloaded nor
watched child pornography on it.

One of the agents asked if Pérez

could turn on the laptop to show the agents that he did not have
any peer-to-peer file sharing applications installed, and at that
point Pérez became evasive and stated he did not want them to touch
the laptop.
At this point the agents immediately ended the interview
and proceeded to secure the premises while Agent Ortiz went to

-4-

Case: 15-1977

Document: 00117113855

Page: 5

Date Filed: 02/03/2017

Entry ID: 6067167

obtain a search warrant for the apartment, which he received by
12:20 that afternoon.

After they obtained the warrant, the agents

searched the apartment and seized several electronic media items,
including the desktop computer Pérez discussed during the knockand-talk and the laptop located on the living room floor. The
desktop and the laptop yielded at least eighty images and over six
hundred videos of child pornography.
Pérez

tells

a

different

story.

According

to

his

account, the agents forced open a padlock on the back gate in order
to gain access to his front door;

entered his apartment without

his consent by pushing gently on his chest; forcefully sat him on
an exercise bike and interrogated him; searched his apartment at
will after he refused to cooperate; ordered him to move from the
kitchen to the living room after they had completed the initial
investigation;

and continued to search his apartment even after

he spoke to his attorney on the phone.
On
possession

May

of

30,

one

2012,

or

more

a

grand

jury

materials

charged

which

Pérez

contained

with

visual

depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct in
violation

of

18

U.S.C.

§ 2252(a)(4)(B)

in

the

District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.

United

States

Following the

indictment, Pérez filed a motion to suppress all evidence, both
physical and testimonial, recovered during the FBI agents' search

-5-

Case: 15-1977

Document: 00117113855

Page: 6

Date Filed: 02/03/2017

Entry ID: 6067167

of his residence and property on April 29, 2011, arguing these
pieces of evidence were the fruits of a warrantless and illegal
search.

After an evidentiary hearing on August 19, 2013, the

magistrate judge issued a first R&R denying Pérez's motion to
suppress.

The magistrate judge credited the agents' testimony

over Pérez's testimony.

Pérez filed a timely objection, but the

district court denied that objection and adopted the magistrate's
R&R.
Two months later, in December of 2013, Pérez moved for
reconsideration

of

the

motion

to

suppress

and

produced

new

evidence, namely two blurry pictures of the padlock of the back
gate purportedly taken on April 29, 2011, and an affidavit from a
locksmith stating that those pictures appeared to show that the
padlock had been opened by force. The court denied reconsideration
because Pérez did not explain why he did not produce this evidence
at the suppression hearing.
In April of 2014, Pérez moved for reconsideration again,
attaching a sworn statement from a neighbor stating the customary
practice in the apartment building was to lock the padlocks on the
gates.

Pérez stated he only just introduced the evidence because

he had been unable to locate this neighbor until recently.

This

time the district court granted the motion for reconsideration in
part, also admitting the blurry pictures of the padlock as well as

-6-

Case: 15-1977

Document: 00117113855

Page: 7

Date Filed: 02/03/2017

Entry ID: 6067167

the opinion testimony of the locksmith, and scheduled another
evidentiary hearing.
After a supplemental suppression hearing on October 7,
2014, the magistrate judge affirmed his initial findings in a
Supplemental R&R, again crediting the FBI agents' testimony over
the testimony of Pérez.
In February 2015, Pérez pled guilty to possession of
child pornography under a plea agreement that preserved his right
to appeal as to the district court's denial of his motion to
suppress. He was sentenced to seventy-eight months of imprisonment
and ten years of supervised release.
II.

This timely appeal followed.

Standard of Review

This court reviews the lower court's factual findings
for clear error, and reviews de novo "[t]he ultimate conclusion as
to whether there is a Fourth Amendment violation."

United States

v. Stokes, 829 F.3d 47, 50 (1st Cir. 2016)(alteration in original);
see United States v. Rabbia, 699 F.3d 85, 91 (1st Cir. 2012).
Clear error exists when there is a definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed. Under
any set of circumstances, clear error is not an easy
standard to meet. This is particularly true, however,
when the challenge is to a witness's credibility, due
to our inability to see witnesses face-to-face or to
appraise in person their demeanor and inflection.
Accordingly, we are especially deferential to the
district court's credibility judgments.
Indeed,
absent
objective
evidence
that
contradicts
a
witness's story or a situation where the story itself
is so internally inconsistent or implausible that no
-7-

Case: 15-1977

Document: 00117113855

Page: 8

Date Filed: 02/03/2017

Entry ID: 6067167

reasonable factfinder would credit it, the ball game
is virtually over once a district court determines
that a key witness is credible.
United States v. Guzmán-Batista, 783 F.3d 930, 937 (1st Cir. 2015)
(citations and quotation marks omitted).
III.
A.

Discussion

The Facts
Pérez has presented no argument that would come anywhere

near to convincing us that the district court committed clear error
by crediting the testimony of Agent Ortiz.

The only objective

evidence Pérez advances that would -- if credited -- cast doubt on
Agent Ortiz's testimony concerns the lock on the back gate.

Agent

Ortiz testified that the agents did not have to use force to enter
through the back gate.

Pérez, however, claims that the back gate

was locked by a padlock, and that the agents forced the padlock.
To support his claims, Pérez relies on (1) a photograph of what
appears to be the padlock in question, accompanied by a locksmith's
affidavit and testimony, and (2) an affidavit from one of his
neighbors, and testimony from that neighbor and from his landlord.
The photograph was of such poor quality, however, that
the locksmith stated that he was not sure whether the dark spots
on those photographs were indications that the lock was forced, or
mere rust or other stains.

The locksmith was never shown the

actual lock, nor was that lock ever produced.

-8-

Pérez has also

Case: 15-1977

Document: 00117113855

Page: 9

Date Filed: 02/03/2017

Entry ID: 6067167

failed to explain why he never raised the issue of the forced lock
at the first hearing on his motion to suppress.

Pérez has

similarly failed to explain why, in a video he himself made shortly
after the agents left -- a video which included the area around
the back gate -- he did not focus in any way on the lock.
Pérez's neighbor no longer lived in the building at the
time

the

knock-and-talk

was

conducted,

and

therefore

cannot

testify to what happened on that day; she also cannot testify to
whether or not the back gate was typically locked after she moved
out.

Pérez's landlord admitted that he did not normally go to the

apartments, and that he was not there on April 29, 2011.
The district court therefore did not commit clear error
by crediting Agent Ortiz's testimony over the evidence Pérez
presented and his testimony.

In the analysis that follows, we

therefore rely on the facts the district court found.
B.

Curtilage
The

curtilage

of

one's

home

encompasses

"the

area

immediately surrounding and associated with the home," and it is
regarded as part of the home for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1414 (2013).
Pérez

argues

that

the

agents

violated

the

Fourth

Amendment by trespassing on the curtilage of his home by entering
through the back gate.

We need not here resolve whether the area

-9-

Case: 15-1977

Document: 00117113855

Page: 10

Date Filed: 02/03/2017

Entry ID: 6067167

between the back gate and the front door is curtilage, because the
officers did not use force to enter it, and they did not search
the area -- they only passed through it in order to knock on
Pérez's front door.

In Jardines, the Supreme Court found that

officers had violated the Fourth Amendment by searching (using a
drug-sniffing dog) the curtilage of the defendant's home; the
Supreme Court also considered it "an unsurprising proposition"
that

the

officers

could

have

passed

through

the

defendant's

curtilage and "lawfully approached his home to knock on the front
door in hopes of speaking with him."

Id. at 1415 n.1.

This is

so, because an "implicit license typically permits the visitor to
approach the home by the front path, knock promptly . . . .
Complying with the terms of that traditional invitation . . . is
generally managed without incident by the Nation's Girl Scouts and
trick-or-treaters."

Id. at 1415.

The FBI agents therefore did

not violate the curtilage of Pérez's home by opening the back gate
or by merely walking from the back gate to the front door.
C.

Consent to Entry into Pérez's Apartment
A police officer may approach and knock on a citizen's

front door, and request the opportunity to speak to the citizen,
in what is known as a knock-and-talk.
452, 469-70 (2011).

Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S.

The citizen does not have to answer or speak

-10-

Case: 15-1977

Document: 00117113855

Page: 11

Date Filed: 02/03/2017

Entry ID: 6067167

to the police officers, and if he does speak to the officers, he
does not have to allow them into their homes.

Id. at 470.

"Consensual searches are a recognized exception to the
Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, but the government bears
the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
defendant

or

voluntarily."

an

authorized

third

party

gave

the

consent

United States v. Vanvliet, 542 F.3d 259, 264 (1st

Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).

Whether the consent was given

voluntarily is a question of fact that "turns on the district
court's

comprehensive

assessment

of

the

totality

of

the

circumstances attending the interaction between defendant/third
party and the searching officers."

Id.

Factors to be weighed in

making this comprehensive assessment include, but are not limited
to, "(i) the consenter's age, education, past experiences, and
intelligence; (ii) whether law enforcement officials advised the
consenter of his constitutional right to refuse consent; (iii) the
length

and

questioning;

conditions
and

(iv)

of
law

inherently coercive tactics."

the

consenter's

enforcement

detention

officials'

use

and/or
of

any

Id. at 264 n.2.

In considering the totality of the circumstances, we are
especially swayed by the fact that Pérez is an experienced police
officer.

An experienced police officer understands that when FBI

agents turn up on his doorstep, he has no obligation to speak to

-11-

Case: 15-1977

them.

Document: 00117113855

Page: 12

Date Filed: 02/03/2017

Entry ID: 6067167

He knows that he does not have to let them in.

If he

should choose to speak to the agents or to invite them in, he also
understands that he is free not to answer any questions.

Yet

Pérez chose to speak to the agents through the door for two
minutes.

He chose to step aside so as to let them enter.

chose to answer a number of questions.
hard drive he had hidden away.

He

He chose to show them the

And when the officers asked him

for something he did not wish to provide -- access to his laptop
-- he withdrew his consent.

Once the consent was withdrawn, the

officers promptly ceased the search, and Agent Ortiz went to secure
a search warrant.

The entire interaction lasted only an estimated

thirty to forty-five minutes, and took place in surroundings that
were familiar to Pérez -- his own home.
use

any

inherently

coercive

The FBI agents did not

tactics;

they

asked

Pérez

straightforward questions, which he willingly answered.

Pérez

makes much of the fact that the knock-and-talk took place at 8:30
a.m., after he had returned from a late shift the previous night,
and that he was therefore tired.

However, even if we accept

Pérez's testimony that he returned from work at 3:00 a.m., 8:30
a.m. is hardly unreasonable.

In addition, Pérez himself testified

that he was expecting a visit from his landlord that morning.

He

could not therefore have been entirely surprised to receive a knock

-12-

Case: 15-1977

Document: 00117113855

Page: 13

Date Filed: 02/03/2017

Entry ID: 6067167

on his door, or been entirely unprepared to have visitors in his
home.
The district court did not clearly err in finding that
Pérez consented to the search and that the agents did not exceed
the scope of that consent.
D.

Seizure of the Apartment
The test for whether a temporary seizure is acceptable

under the Fourth Amendment is based on reasonableness, looking at
four factors set out in Illinois v. McArthur: 1) the police had
probable cause to believe the property "contained evidence of a
crime or contraband," (2) "the police had good reason to fear" the
contraband would be destroyed before the police returned to the
location with a warrant, (3) "the police made reasonable efforts
to reconcile their law enforcement needs with the demands of
personal privacy," and (4) "the police imposed the restraint for
a [sufficiently] limited period of time."

531 U.S. 326, 331-33

(2001).
The agents had probable cause to believe that Pérez's
apartment contained evidence that he had viewed child pornography.
"The standard [for probable cause] is satisfied when the totality
of the circumstances create a fair probability that . . . evidence
of a crime will be found in a particular place."

United States

v. Silva, 742 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2014) (omission in original).

-13-

Case: 15-1977

Document: 00117113855

Page: 14

Date Filed: 02/03/2017

Entry ID: 6067167

The agents executed a warrant on the Family Home because, in
November 2010, their undercover operation had revealed that a
computer there contained child pornography.

At the Family Home,

the agents learned from Pérez's family members that he had lived
at the Family Home during November 2010, that he used a desktop
and a laptop computer there, and that he had viewed pornography on
at least one of those computers.

The agents also learned that

Pérez had moved out of the Family Home, and that he had taken both
of his computers with him.
Pérez's

apartment,

he

In addition, when the agents were in

admitted

downloaded child pornography.

that

he

had

inadvertently

There was thus a fair probability

that Pérez's apartment -- in particular the computers there -contained evidence that he had viewed child pornography.
The agents also had reason to fear that Pérez would
destroy the evidence unless they secured the premises.

Pérez had

learned from his conversation with the agents at his apartment
that they had executed a search warrant on the Family Home looking
for evidence of child pornography.

The agents had asked him

whether he had accidentally downloaded child pornography.

They

had also asked him to turn on his laptop (which, as Pérez appears
to have known, contained images of child pornography).
"reasonably

could

have

concluded

-14-

that

[Pérez],

The agents

consequently

Case: 15-1977

Document: 00117113855

Page: 15

Date Filed: 02/03/2017

Entry ID: 6067167

suspecting an imminent search, would, if given the chance, get rid
of the [evidence] fast."

McArthur, 531 U.S. at 332.

The agents also made reasonable efforts to reconcile the
needs of law enforcement with the demands of personal privacy.
The agents neither searched Pérez's apartment nor detained Pérez
in any way.2

They merely remained in his apartment to ensure that

no evidence would be destroyed.
Finally, the seizure lasted for only approximately three
hours, from around 9:30 a.m. to around 12:20 p.m.

See id. (finding

a two-hour seizure of an apartment reasonable, referring to two
hours as a "limited" amount of time, and noting that "this time
period was no longer than reasonably necessary for the police,
acting with diligence, to obtain the warrant").

There is no

indication that Agent Ortiz did not act with diligence in securing
the warrant; rather, the evidence suggests that three hours was
the time required to obtain the warrant and to return to Pérez's
apartment with the warrant.
Pérez has thus failed to show that the district committed
clear error when it found that the temporary seizure of Pérez's
apartment did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

2

Although Pérez asserts that he was not allowed to leave his
apartment while it was seized, his testimony is contradicted by
that of the agents, and the district court did not commit clear
error by crediting their testimony over his.
-15-

Case: 15-1977

Document: 00117113855

IV.
Pérez
committed

clear

challenges.

has

failed

error

when

Page: 16

Date Filed: 02/03/2017

Entry ID: 6067167

Conclusion
to

show

that

it

rejected

the
his

district

Fourth

court

Amendment

The decision of the district court is therefore

affirmed.
Affirmed.

-16-