United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 99-1826
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
CARLOS ESQUILIN,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Selya and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
Jane Elizabeth Lee for appellant.
F. Mark Terison, Assistant U.S. Attorney, with whom Jay P.
McCloskey, U.S. Attorney, was on brief, for appellee.
April 5, 2000
LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. A federal grand jury in the
District of Maine indicted Carlos Esquilin on a charge of
possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). After the district court denied
Esquilin's motion to suppress physical evidence seized in a
search of his motel room and statements he made to the police
after his arrest, see United States v. Esquilin, 42 F. Supp. 2d
20, 34 (D. Me. 1999), he entered a conditional guilty plea.
Esquilin now appeals, challenging the district court's
suppression decision on Fourth Amendment and Miranda grounds.
He argues that the court erred in making the following rulings:
(1) a dog sniff inside Esquilin's motel room was not a search;
(2) his consent to the subsequent search that yielded the
cocaine was voluntary; and (3) a prior Miranda violation by the
police did not render inadmissible a statement he made to police
after Miranda warnings. We find no error in these rulings and
affirm the judgment.
I.
On September 17, 1998, Esquilin was staying at the
Super 8 Motel in Westbrook, Maine. The motel manager suspected
possible drug activity in Esquilin's room because there were a
large number of telephone calls and visitors to the room and
because Esquilin had re-rented the room in his name and that of
-2-
Martin Wright after the room had originally been rented, and
paid for in cash, by Wright alone. The manager telephoned
Detective Kenneth Viger of the Westbrook Police to explain her
suspicions. Knowing that the manager had been a reliable
informant regarding drug activity in the past, Viger went to the
motel accompanied by Officer Philip Hebert and Hebert's drug-
sniffing German shepherd, Zena. In the motel hallway, in
response to Hebert's command to find drugs, Zena went to
Esquilin's door and sniffed deeply. The officers knocked at the
door and Esquilin answered; a smell of marijuana emanated from
the room.
Esquilin consented to the officers and the dog entering
his room so that Viger could ask him some questions.1 Viger told
Esquilin that he was there to investigate suspected drug
activity and asked Esquilin about the reasons for his trip to
Maine. Although Viger and Hebert gave conflicting testimony at
the suppression hearing about what Hebert and Zena were doing
while Viger and Esquilin conversed, the district court accepted
Hebert's testimony that Zena was sniffing throughout the motel
1Esquilin argued before the district court that he did not
voluntarily consent, at least to the entry of the dog. The
court concluded that "Mr. Esquilin voluntarily consented to the
officers and the drug-detection dog entering his motel room," 42
F. Supp. 2d at 29, and Esquilin does not challenge this
conclusion on appeal.
-3-
room while Hebert held her on a six-foot leash. See id. at 25.
She sniffed at all the furniture, especially the bed, at a GAP
shopping bag in the corner of the room, and at Esquilin himself,
who patted her playfully and said he had a dog of his own,
leading the officers to believe that he was trying to distract
her. Esquilin appeared extremely nervous, his hands were
shaking, and he gave evasive replies to Viger's questions.
Believing that Zena had sensed the presence of drugs
in the room, Hebert communicated this to Viger by nodding to
him. Viger asked Esquilin if he had any drugs; when Esquilin
said he did not, Viger asked if Esquilin minded if they looked
around to make sure. Esquilin responded, "No, go ahead, look
anywhere you want." Hebert gave Zena the command to "find the
dope," and she immediately returned to the GAP bag. After
pulling out some clothing, she pulled out a plastic bag
containing white powder and, according to Hebert, "threw it in
the air, [and it] did the somersault and fell in the middle of
the floor." Viger asked Esquilin what was in the bag. He
answered, "coke."
Esquilin was arrested and Viger went to the manager's
office to telephone for backup. After the arrest, Viger and
Hebert neither questioned Esquilin nor gave him Miranda
warnings. Agent Gerard Brady of the Maine Drug Enforcement
-4-
Agency arrived and took over the investigation. Viger told
Brady that no Miranda warnings had been given to Esquilin.
Brady asked Esquilin why he was there and what was going on.
Esquilin gestured at the plastic bag and said, "Because of
cocaine." In response to questions from Brady, Esquilin said
that he was from New York, that the bag contained nine ounces of
cocaine, and that the cocaine was his. Esquilin's pager went
off, prompting Brady to ask Esquilin if he minded if he looked
at the telephone number that was displayed. Esquilin indicated
that he did not; when asked he said that the number was his
girlfriend's. Brady then read Esquilin the Miranda warnings
from a preprinted card. After each warning Esquilin said he
understood his rights, and both Brady and Esquilin signed the
card. Brady asked if Esquilin wanted to speak to him then,
without a lawyer present, and Esquilin answered, "I'll talk to
you man to man." He then made a detailed confession, explaining
that he had purchased the cocaine in the Bronx for $6,000 and
brought it to Maine to sell.
In the district court Esquilin sought suppression of
all the physical evidence discovered in the motel room,
including the cocaine, some cash that was discovered under a
mattress, and a piece of paper found in his clothing. He also
sought to suppress all of the statements he made to police
-5-
before and after the Miranda warnings. The government did not
seek admission of the piece of paper or Esquilin's pre-warning
statements to Brady. The court refused to suppress the other
evidence, and Esquilin preserved the issue for appeal by
entering a conditional guilty plea pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(a)(2).
II.
On appeal, Esquilin first contends that the district
court erred by finding that the dog sniff inside the motel room
was not a search and that his subsequent consent to search the
room was voluntary. Both contentions are without merit.
While Viger was conversing with Esquilin, Zena sniffed
around the motel room while held on a six-foot leash by Hebert.
The court ruled that this sniffing behavior was not a search,
relying on United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983). In
Place, the Supreme Court held that a dog sniff of luggage in an
airport was not a search. See id. at 707. Esquilin argues
unpersuasively that Place is distinguishable because the dog
sniff there took place in public. On the contrary, the
important factor in applying Place is not whether the sniff
occurs in a public place like an airport, but whether--as in an
officer's "plain view" observation of contraband--"the observing
person or the sniffing canine are legally present at their
-6-
vantage when their respective senses are aroused by obviously
incriminating evidence." United States v. Reed, 141 F.3d 644,
649 (6th Cir. 1998); see also United States v. Rodriguez-
Morales, 929 F.2d 780, 788 (1st Cir. 1991) (holding dog sniff of
exterior of car not a search where car was properly impounded).
Since Esquilin voluntarily consented to the presence of Zena and
the officers in his motel room, the district court correctly
concluded that the sniff was not a search.2
Esquilin argues further that his consent to the full-
blown search of the motel room, in which Zena found and
retrieved the cocaine, was not voluntary. We review the
district court's finding that Esquilin's consent was voluntary
for clear error. See United States v. Coraine, 198 F.3d 306,
308 (1st Cir. 1999). "The voluntariness of a consent to search
turns on an assessment of the totality of the circumstances,"
and "it is not essential that the officers first inform the
consenting party of the right to withhold consent." United
States v. Barnett, 989 F.2d 546, 554-55 (1st Cir. 1993) (citing
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 227 (1973)).
2
Esquilin also says that a search occurred when Zena moved
various items, particularly the shopping bag, during her initial
sniffing around the room. We need not address the legal theory
behind this contention, raised for the first time on appeal,
because the record is devoid of evidence that Zena moved
anything until after Esquilin consented to a full-scale search.
-7-
Esquilin expressly consented to the search, and the
evidence amply supports the district court's finding that the
consent was voluntary. On appeal, Esquilin points to no facts
that suggest a contrary conclusion. So far as the record
reveals, his extreme nervousness, rather than the result of any
coercive conduct by Viger or Hebert, was merely the natural
reaction of a person who has inartfully hidden cocaine in his
motel room and is faced with an unexpected visit from two
policemen and a drug-sniffing dog. The district court did not
err in refusing to suppress the physical evidence discovered in
the search.
III.
Esquilin contends that the district court erred by
refusing to suppress the statements he made to Agent Brady after
Brady administered the Miranda warnings. The admission of
Esquilin's pre-warning statement to Brady was not at issue. 3
Conceding that that statement was obtained in violation of
Miranda, the government did not seek to introduce it in
evidence.
3Esquilin does not argue that the statements he made to
Viger before he was arrested, including his admission that the
plastic bag contained "coke," should have been suppressed
pursuant to Miranda.
-8-
When a defendant's initial statement is obtained in
violation of Miranda, the admissibility of a subsequent
statement made after Miranda warnings is governed by Oregon v.
Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985). In Elstad, the Supreme Court held
that if a statement obtained in violation of Miranda is
nevertheless voluntary, a subsequent statement is not subject to
the "fruit of the poisonous tree" analysis applicable to a
constitutional violation. See id. at 309. Instead, "the
admissibility of any subsequent statement should turn . . .
solely on whether it is knowingly and voluntarily made." Id.
In deciding the voluntariness of the later statement, a valid
waiver of Miranda rights is normally dispositive: "A subsequent
administration of Miranda warnings to a suspect who has given a
voluntary but unwarned statement ordinarily should suffice to
remove the conditions that precluded admission of the earlier
statement." Id. at 314. Relying on Elstad, the district court
concluded that Esquilin's unwarned and warned statements were
voluntary and declined to suppress the latter. See 42 F. Supp.
2d at 34.
Esquilin does not argue on appeal that his first
statement was involuntary or that the subsequent Miranda
warnings he received were deficient. Thus, Elstad would appear
to dictate the admissibility of his post-warning statement.
-9-
Esquilin nevertheless argues that Elstad is distinguishable
because it involved two temporally separate interrogations
(about an hour apart, see 470 U.S. at 301), the first unwarned
and the second warned, whereas in this case there was only one
interrogation, with the warnings occurring mid-stream. In
essence, Esquilin contends that the time lapse between the two
statements that occurred in Elstad is a necessary part of the
case's holding. There is no suggestion of such a limitation in
the Elstad opinion, however. The rule of the case sweeps more
broadly than its particular facts. Indeed, the Court
specifically explained that the factual distinction emphasized
by Esquilin is of no legal consequence.
According to Elstad, the lapse of time between
interrogations is relevant only when the statement obtained in
violation of Miranda was actually coerced. See id. at 310-11.
In that event, "the time that passes between confessions" is one
factor that bears "on whether that coercion has carried over
into the second confession." Id. at 310. On the other hand,
when the prior unwarned statement is not coerced, "a careful and
thorough administration of Miranda warnings serves to cure the
condition that rendered the unwarned statement inadmissible.
The warning conveys the relevant information and thereafter the
suspect's choice whether to exercise his privilege to remain
-10-
silent should ordinarily be viewed as an 'act of free will.'"
Id. at 310-11 (quoting Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471,
486 (1963)). In other words, although the elapsed time between
interrogations is one factor that may dissipate the taint of a
coerced confession, the lesser taint of a Miranda violation may
be dissipated by subsequent warnings even if the unwarned and
warned statements are obtained during the same interrogation.
Esquilin also argues that his first, unwarned statement
was the product of "improper tactics." In Elstad, the Court
observed that "absent deliberately coercive or improper tactics
in obtaining the initial statement, the mere fact that a suspect
has made an unwarned admission does not warrant a presumption of
compulsion"4 as to the subsequent statement. Id. at 314.
4 The Elstad Court used the term "presumption of compulsion"
(and, equivalently, "presumption of coercion") in two distinct
ways. When a statement is obtained in violation of Miranda
there arises a presumption of compulsion as to that statement.
See 470 U.S. at 304-07. This presumption is "irrebuttable for
purposes of the prosecution's case in chief," id. at 307, making
the statement inadmissible regardless of whether it was actually
compelled. A presumption of compulsion as to a subsequent
statement does not arise, however, unless the initial statement
was actually compelled. See id. at 314, 318. The latter
presumption is substantially identical to the "fruit of the
poisonous tree" rule. Just as the government can "purge" the
"taint" of an unreasonable search or seizure by showing "a
sufficient break in events to undermine the inference that the
confession was caused by the Fourth Amendment violation," id. at
306, so it can rebut the presumption of compulsion by
demonstrating that the "coercion has [not] carried over into the
second confession," id. at 310.
-11-
Esquilin contends that Brady was guilty of more than a "simple
failure to administer the warnings," id. at 309, because his
conduct was deliberate.5 A deliberate Miranda violation, he
says, constitutes per se "improper tactics" and automatically
warrants a presumption of compulsion as to the subsequent
statement, without regard to the effect of the violation on the
voluntariness of the initial statement.
This argument focuses on some admittedly imprecise
language in Elstad while ignoring the Court's emphasis on
voluntariness throughout the opinion. Although the Court did
not explicitly define "deliberately coercive or improper
tactics," it used several more detailed phrases that in context
are synonymous with that term: "actual coercion or other
circumstances calculated to undermine the suspect's ability to
exercise his free will," id. at 309; "physical violence or other
deliberate means calculated to break the suspect's will," id. at
312; and "inherently coercive police tactics or methods
offensive to due process that render the initial admission
5
The district court did not make a finding that Brady's
Miranda violation was deliberate. Instead, the court stated
that "to the extent [Brady's] conduct is a deliberate or an oft-
repeated strategy, it is an unwise one." 42 F. Supp. 2d at 33
n.5. The court's discussion suggests that it may have assumed
arguendo that the Miranda violation was deliberate, see id. at
33, and we will do the same in evaluating Esquilin's arguments
on appeal.
-12-
involuntary and undermine the suspect's will to invoke his
rights once they are read to him," id. at 317. Contrary to
Esquilin's argument that there are "improper tactics" that can
raise a presumption of compulsion without regard to
voluntariness, the Elstad Court held that "there is no warrant
for presuming coercive effect where the suspect's initial
inculpatory statement, though technically in violation of
Miranda, was voluntary." Id. at 318. If we read Elstad as a
coherent whole, it follows that "deliberately coercive or
improper tactics" are not two distinct categories, as Esquilin
would have it, but simply alternative descriptions of the type
of police conduct that may render a suspect's initial, unwarned
statement involuntary.
Esquilin cites no cases adopting a contrary
interpretation of "improper tactics." His broader contention
that a deliberate failure to give Miranda warnings can mandate
the suppression of a post-warning confession despite the
voluntariness of both statements is supported by language in one
circuit case, United States v. Carter, 884 F.2d 368, 372-74 (8th
Cir. 1989). The passage in Carter that Esquilin relies on,
however, appears to be dicta. See id. at 374 (stating that
confession would be suppressed as fruit of an unconstitutional
search even if suppression not required by Elstad). Furthermore,
-13-
Carter's assertion that the admissibility of a post-warning
confession following a Miranda violation is not necessarily
determined by whether the two statements were voluntary, see id.
(criticizing "endless case-by-case voluntariness inquiries"), is
facially inconsistent with the Supreme Court's holding in
Elstad.
Esquilin does not contend that Brady's allegedly
deliberate Miranda violation made his first statement
involuntary, and he could not reasonably do so. It is part and
parcel of the Elstad holding that a failure to give Miranda
warnings does not, without more, make a confession involuntary.
See Elstad, 470 U.S. at 306 n.1. The addition of a subjective
intent by the officer to violate Miranda, unaccompanied by any
coercive conduct, cannot in itself undermine the suspect's free
will. In the absence of any police coercion, there was nothing
to hinder Esquilin from invoking his right to remain silent
after the Miranda warnings were administered, except perhaps his
own sense that the initial statement (and the discovery of the
cocaine) had "let the cat out of the bag," so that he might as
well confess. The Elstad Court, however, said that this sort of
effect does not qualify as coercion: "This Court has never held
that the psychological impact of voluntary disclosure of a
guilty secret qualifies as state compulsion or compromises the
-14-
voluntariness of a subsequent informed waiver." Id. at 312; see
also Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167 (1986) (holding
that confession cannot be involuntary for due process purposes
absent "coercive police activity").
Finally, Esquilin suggests that the deterrence
rationale of the Miranda rule would be undercut if a deliberate
violation by Brady did not result in the suppression of
Esquilin's confession, even going so far as to claim that
"Elstad could not apply to the present situation without
implicitly overruling Miranda." We disagree. Although Elstad
does not permit suppression of Esquilin's voluntary statement
made after he was informed of his Miranda rights and voluntarily
waived them, the basic Miranda rule still operates here to
render Esquilin's initial, unwarned (but voluntary) statement
inadmissible. The Supreme Court has judged that Miranda's
deterrence rationale requires no more than that, see Elstad, 470
U.S. at 308, and we are not free to ignore that judgment.
The district court carefully considered these issues
and correctly determined that Esquilin's unwarned admissions to
Brady were not rendered involuntary by "deliberately coercive or
improper tactics." Because Brady's "careful and thorough
administration of Miranda warnings serve[d] to cure the
condition that rendered the unwarned statement inadmissible,"
-15-
id. at 311, the court was also correct to conclude that
Esquilin's subsequent confession was voluntary. The court did
not err in denying the motion to suppress the post-warning
statements.
Affirmed.
-16-