United States v. Echeverry-Berrio, 1st Cir. (1995)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Echeverry-Berrio, 1st Cir. (1995)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUSCA1 Opinion
June 13, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-2228
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
$200,226.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY,
Defendant.
__________
GLORIA ISABEL ECHEVERRY BERRIO BUENO MONSALVE,
Claimant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Jon May and Charmain Williams
_______
_________________
with whom Ronald I. Strauss was
__________________
briefs for claimant, appellant.
Jose
Vazquez,
______________
Assistant
United
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney,
______________
States
Attorney,
was on briefs
States.
____________________
____________________
with
for the Uni
Per Curiam.
__________
stay
On September
9, 1993,
after a
one-night
in San Juan, Puerto Rico, the claimant Gloria Echeverry
passed
through the
security
checkpoint at
Marin International Airport on
Miami, Florida.
the Luis
her way to board a
flight to
A private security guard viewed the first of
Echeverry's two carry-on bags as it passed through
machine.
Munoz
The guard's suspicion
the X-ray
was aroused by a mysterious
shape in the first bag; the guard asked Echeverry whether the
bag was hers, and Echeverry replied in the affirmative.
The guard
opened the first carry-on
bag and discovered
large amounts of cash wrapped in four towels.
The guard then
summoned a Puerto Rico police officer, who in turn eventually
called DEA
agents to the scene.
The second carry-on bag was
also searched
and found to
contain cash wrapped
together
the
bags
retained
by the DEA, and Echeverry was allowed to leave with
contained
$200,226.00.
in towels;
The
cash
was
a receipt for the money.
Virtually everything else
is
disputed.
Pertinently,
that occurred at
the
government
Echeverry consented to a search of both bags.
also says
that Echeverry voluntarily provided
remarkable story about the source of the money:
the airport
claims
that
The government
police with a
according to
the
of
prosecutors, she stated that the $200,000 was a gift out
the
blue
from
her
wealthy
Italian
boyfriend,
whose
address, telephone number and occupation were unknown to her,
-2-2-
and was delivered to her in a brown paper bag
by a stranger.
On the other hand, Echeverry denies ever consenting to a
search
of
her bags
interrogated,
and
and that
says she
prior to
was
detained, isolated,
her alleged
detention she
made no statement whatever about the origin of the cash.
says that she was told by the police of their general
to detain persons carrying
remain
in
cash and that she was
separate location
until
the
DEA
She
policy
ordered to
arrived to
interrogate her.
On January
20, 1994,
the United States
filed a
civil
forfeiture complaint against the money in the district court,
alleging
that the
cash was the
connection with drug trafficking.
On February 25, 1994,
proceeds of or
was used in
See 21 U.S.C.
___
881(a)(6).
Echeverry filed a claim to
the seized
cash.
On March
subsequently
suppress
8, 1994, she filed a motion to dismiss.
filed a
much of
motion,
and supporting
the evidence
enforcement agents had obtained
on the
She
affidavit, to
ground that
her statements and
the law
physical
evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
On July 12,
and order denying
suppress and
the claimant's motions
directing Echeverry
judgment should
response
1994, the district judge
to the
not
be
court's
entered
to dismiss and
to show cause
for the
sua sponte
__________
-3-3-
issued an opinion
why summary
government.
order, the
to
In
government
moved
for
entry of
forfeiture judgment
on July
Echeverry filed her response on August 4, 1994.
court entered an
the
order on September 23,
claimant's dismissal
summary
judgment
for
forfeiture of the money.
The
and suppression
the
United
14, 1994.
The district
1994, again denying
motions, granting
States
and
ordering
This appeal followed.
chief issue in this
appeal is the district court's
resolution of contested factual disputes
on summary judgment
without an
and
resulting
district
of
evidentiary hearing.
the
statements at
In deciding that the search
the
airport
were legal,
the
judge relied explicitly on the government's version
facts.
qualification
Pertinently, the
that
opinion
Echeverry provided
voluntarily and that she "was
stated
the
without
boyfriend story
never detained by the security
personnel, local police officer [sic] or DEA agents" and "was
free
to leave at her will."
probable
Then, in ruling that there was
cause to believe that
trafficking,
the
district
the cash was
judge
relied
linked to drug
on
Echeverry's
explanation of how she received the cash.
In
concluding that
district court cited
Echeverry was
never detained,
to the affidavits of
the
three officers or
agents.
Acknowledging that
"contradicting"
said that
"not
Echeverry had filed an affidavit
those of the
government, the district court
Echeverry's affidavit was
create an
issue
of
fact
so
"self-serving" and
as
to
defeat
did
summary
-4-4-
judgment."
Her affidavit
is certainly self-serving, as most
litigation affidavits
conclusion and
version.
is undeniably
told
me
luggage
that
arrival of
was
at odds with
was opened]
would be
the DEA.
the government's
to
the airport
told that
I would
be
until
to a
the arrival
Carreras
pending
detain
anyone who
came
Upon
detained, Officer
being
Carreras
of luggage and ordered
small room
of
the
Carreras stated that
carrying money.
picked up my two pieces
follow him
Officer
detained
Officer
their policy
through
to
somewhat beyond mere
Her affidavit said in part:
[After the
it
are, but it goes
where I
the DEA.
me
was held
Prior to
being
detained, I made no statement concerning the origin
of the money in my possession.
believed
determination of
clearly
hearing
of some
happened
at
Echeverry's
cannot
kind.
the
version
whose version
be
Neither
airport
was
made
was
squarely
of events
without
of
an
should be
evidentiary
the versions
inherently
supported by
of
what
incredible;
her
sworn
affidavit.
Under these circumstances, we do not see how the
district court could determine
be resolved
live
in the
witnesses
government's favor without
and
testify in open court.
13
that the factual issues could
giving
Echeverry
the
hearing from
opportunity
See, e.g., United States
___ ____ _____________
to
v. Taylor,
______
F.3d 786 (4th Cir. 1994); United States v. Berkowitz, 927
_____________
_________
F.2d 1376, 1385
(7th Cir.
1991), cert. denied,
____________
113 S.
Ct.
1059 (1993).
If Echeverry
police, held in
was in fact detained
involuntarily by the
isolation for a substantial period, given no
-5-5-
Miranda
_______
warning,
potentially quite
issues raised as to
and
damaging,
made
statements
there are
least
account of
are
colorable
used in
See One 1958 Plymouth Sedan
___ ________________________
380 U.S. 693, 696 (1965).
Echeverry's unusual
at
that
whether the statements could be
the forfeiture proceeding.
Pennsylvania,
____________
then
v.
Further, the use of
how she received
the funds,
and her professed ignorance
boyfriend, played
of information about her alleged
an important role in
the district court's
determination that the property was subject to forfeit.
The judgment of
the district court
matter is remanded for
________
to
prescribe the
think
further proceedings.
course of
that the district court
course
to hold
an
is vacated and
_______
the proceedings
might be well
evidentiary hearing
the
Without seeking
on remand,
we
advised in due
to determine
whose
version of the airport events is correct before attempting to
resolve either the suppression or the forfeiture issues.
It is so ordered.
________________
-6-6-
