The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found a lack of exigent circumstances to support a warrantless search and reversed Ariel Menchaca-Castruita’s conviction for possession for sale of marijuana

Mr. Menchaca rented a house in McAllen, Texas, In the three month period after he rented the house he did not pay any rent. The landlords decided to make a personal visit to the residence. They knocked on the door and their was no answer. They saw him through a bedroom window and he opened the door to talk to them. He offered to pay the rent but they insisted on coming into the house to see what condition it was in. When they entered they saw a bundle of marijuana. They called the police and Menchaca left the home. Before he drove away Menchaca threatened the landlord with a tire iron but was unable to make contact.

The police arrived and after talking to the landlords they immediately searched the residence. After Menchaca was arrested he made a motion to suppress the evidence on the grounds that the search was committed without a search warrant. The government responded that a search warrant was not necessary. The government claimed that the search was justified by exigent circumstances. The government pointed out that:

(1) the officer was aware that an assault had occurred shortly before his
arrival on the scene; (2) he had reason to believe that there was marijuana inside
the residence; (3) he was unsure whether additional persons were present inside
the residence; (4) he knew from experience that persons who engage in drug
trafficking often carry firearms; and (5) he was concerned for his own safety as
well as the safety of the bystanders

The Fourth Amendment requires that prior to searching a private residence the police get a search warrant. But there are a limited number of exceptions to the rule. One of the exceptions is that the police may search a residence without a search warrant if exigent circumstances exist. Among the factors to be considered in determining whether or not exigent circumstances exist are.

(1) the degree of urgency involved and amount of time necessary to
obtain a warrant;
(2) the reasonable belief that contraband is about to be removed;
(3) the possibility of danger to the police officers guarding the site of contraband while a search warrant is sought;
(4) information indicating the possessors of the contraband are aware that the police are on their trail; and
(5) the ready destructibility of the contraband and the knowledge that efforts to dispose of narcotics and to escape are characteristic behavior of persons engaged in the narcotics traffic.

The Fifth Circuit found that the government had not provided any evidence that there was any danger to the officers or that the evidence might be destroyed. On the contrary, the evidence indicated that Menchaca had left the residence and that there was no evidence that anyone was still in the building. Furthermore it was on a week day and the officers would have no trouble getting a magistrate to sign a search warrant. In support of the reversal of the trial court ruling that the search was constitutional the appellate court found that;

(1) When Menchaca fled in his truck, he knew that Mrs. Garcia had called the
police, so he could have, and almost certainly would have, alerted any of his
accomplices to flee with him; (2) the officers knew that Mr. Garcia had peered
into the side windows of the house and had seen only Menchaca there; (3) Mrs.
Garcia never mentioned an accomplice, and the testimony at the suppression
hearing at least suggested that Ms. San Miguel might have told the officers that
there were no accomplices inside the house; (4) the front door to the residence
had been left open, indicating a hasty retreat as well as an unsecured premises,
inconsistent with the probability of additional occupants; and (5) there were no
sounds coming from inside the residence to suggest that someone might have
remained behind.

As a result the court found that it was unlikely that anyone else was in the building or that the police were in any danger. As a result it reversed the conviction finding that there were not exigent circumstances supporting the search and that Menchaca’s Fourth Amendment right to be secure in his property had been violated.

One of the hardest things for a criminal defense attorney to do is to deal with with non-citizen clients. Often they face deportation, exclusion, or denial of citizenship in addition to the normal punishment for a conviction. In the years I’ve been practicing I have represented numerous clients that immigrated to this country as young children with their families but have never become citizens. Many of them don’t even speak their “native” language. Many do not have any close family left in their “native” country. For many of these people the penalty of deportation is much greater than whatever time they are going to spend in jail or prison.

Of course I have other clients who after a brief period dealing with the criminal justice system tell me to get them back to their native country as fast as possible.

Then again I had a Mexican client. He plead guilty to a drug offense and the judge ordered that he be released on his own recognizance from jail at the time of his guilty plea. He was given a date for sentencing. But no one expected him to be there since he had an INS hold. I came to court on the day set for sentencing and he was not there. I asked the bailiff if he was in custody and I was told he had been released to INS. But as I was leaving the building–guess who walks in. He told me that he had been ordered back for sentencing on that date and he did not want a bench warrant. So he came back across the border and got to court only an hour late. He was sentenced. Pursuant to the plea agreement he did not do any more time in custody. Since he wasn’t in custody, the INS could not pick him up and he walked out the front door of the courthouse.

Generally ICE puts a hold on non-citizens when they are in custody. Americans know from watching too many police dramas on TV that anything you say to a peace officer can and will be used against you. Foreigners do not always know this and therefore many non-citizens make the fatal mistake of answering questions posed by ICE agents who meet them in the jail. By telling the agents their citizenship status or their place of birth they end up with an ICE hold. When this happens the jail must notify ICE when the foreign national is to be released. Then the jail or prison must hold the individual for five more days to allow ICE time to come and get him/her.

I had one client who was a French citizen. She was married to a US citizen and she could have become a US citizen is she tried. Despite (and perhaps because of) the fact that she was a drug addict and therefore subject to arrest and deportation, she never became a citizen. Eventually she was arrested with a significant amount of drugs on her. She was taken to jail and even though she was fairly smart she answered all of the questions posed by the ICE agent who put a hold on her. The ICE agents question foreign born prisoners before they are even arraigned and before they have a chance to talk to a lawyer and learn their right not to speak to the agent. My client was charged, convicted, and deported leaving her husband at least temporarily in this country.

What brings all of this up is a case out of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In Singh v. Holder the court held that a conviction for”wounding” under the laws of Virginia is an aggravated felony and a conviction for such resulted in this case in denial of citizenship.

Satbir Singh immigrated to this country in 1987. After he was here for a couple of months he was convicted of wounding in Virginia. Before he could be sentenced he returned to India. He was arrested when he reentered the country in 1998. After he was sentenced he applied for citizenship. It was denied on the basis of his conviction for an aggravated felony. He sued in the United State District Court. Summary judgment was granted to the defendants and he appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

An aggravated felony is inter alia “a crime of violence . . . for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year.” It includes many other offenses including those involving drugs, theft and firearms. (See USC Title 8, section 1101.)Wounding, under Virginia law, is

(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against the person or property of
another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves
a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property
of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

The court did not have much trouble showing that wounding was an aggravated felony. But since the law took effect in 1990 a second question was raised in the appeal. Since the plea was before 1990 and the sentencing was after 1990 which date would be used. The Court did not have much trouble saying that the conviction date was the date of the sentence.

The Fifth Circuit upheld the summary judgment finding and he was correctly denied citizenship.

While this case does not involve deportation many do. Since denial of citizenship is an additional penalty, why should a non-citizen be punished more for the same criminal conduct that the citizen. This is particularly noticeable when the long term resident but non-citizen is deported. The penalty can be significantly more burdensome than the penalty for the same conduct committed by the citizen.