Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Silva, 1st Cir. (2014)
United States v. Silva, 1st Cir. (2014)
Before
Torruella, Howard, and Thompson,
Circuit Judges.
February 5, 2014
and
issuing
prejudicial
jury
instruction
on
the
Pelletier
He
also reported that Silva was living out of his silver Cadillac
sedan, in which Silva kept all of his belongings and was currently
parked in a lot at 25 Linlew Drive.
-2-
In
2010,
he
claimed
to
have
been
beaten
by
six
None of
the car and asked the individual for his driver's license.
When
-3-
When they
After
Silva was taken to the police station, he waived his Miranda rights
and told the officers that he must have obtained the counterfeit
bills during a transaction at a nearby Walmart or gas station.
He
Pelletier "in order to gain probable cause" for the search warrant.
Pelletier
informed
the
detective
that
Silva
had
called
him
-4-
Service.
agents
discovered
in
counterfeit
money,
Trial
The government charged Silva with possession with intent
discovered during his arrest and the subsequent search of his car.
He further moved to invalidate the search warrant for his car on
the
basis
that
Coffee's
application
concealed
material
facts
-5-
After the
-6-
The court
The
jury
returned
conviction
on
the
charge
of
court.
II.
Discussion
(holding
that
suspicion
and
probable
cause
Fourth Amendment right when they seized him at 25 Linlew Road based
on Pelletier's allegedly unreliable complaint.
dispute
that
the
police
officers
"seized"
when
they
The only
-7-
F.3d 25, 29 (1st Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Arvizu, 534
U.S. 266, 273 (2002) ("[T]he Fourth Amendment is satisfied if the
officer's action is supported by reasonable suspicion to believe
that criminal activity may be afoot.") (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
the
suspicion
police
of
officer
an
"must
individual's
have
reasonable,
involvement
in
some
20, 27-28 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449
U.S. 411, 417 (1981)).
than probable cause."
Id.
-8-
Id.
Humboldt Cnty., 542 U.S. 177, 185 (2004). Where circumstances give
officers reasonable grounds to suspect that a defendant may have a
criminal history, they may also run a routine background and
warrant check without exceeding the scope of an investigatory stop.
Klaucke v. Daly, 595 F.3d 20, 26 (1st Cir. 2010); Foley v. Kiely,
602 F.3d 28, 33 (1st Cir. 2010).
At the time Officers Muncey and Phillips approached
Silva, they had received information from a third party alleging
that Silva was producing and in possession of counterfeit currency.
The officers who received Pelletier's complaint had no knowledge of
Pelletier's prior eccentricities that may have led them to question
the reliability of his account.
corroborated
by
the
fact
that
produced
an
exemplar
of
-9-
Silva
argues
that
the
Derry
police
lacked
He
-10-
prior
to
searching
the
car
for
and
seizing
the
contraband.").
Probable cause exists when "the facts and circumstances
as to which police have reasonably trustworthy information are
sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief
that evidence of a crime will be found."
see also Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050, 1055 (2013) ("A police
officer has probable cause to conduct a search when the facts
available to [him] would warrant a [person] of reasonable caution
in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime is present."
(alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The
-11-
a particular place."
producing
both
counterfeit
currency
and
counterfeit
Together with
Pelletier's
Silva
initial
report,
which
alleged
that
had
an
-12-
court
looks
"at
subjective intent."
Cir. 2010).
the
objective
not
at
the
actors'
Silva
argues
that
Agent
Coffee's
failure
to
include Pelletier's history of delusional complaints or his selfidentified animus against Silva in the warrant application, both of
which may have undermined the magistrate's finding of probable
cause, renders the ensuing warrant and search of Silva's car
-13-
invalid.
assertions
that
Pelletier
was
"trustworthy
and
obtained
showings.
First,
through
the
an
invalid
defendant
must
warrant
show
must
that
make
the
two
warrant
2012); see also Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978)
(requiring
"a
substantial
preliminary
showing
that
false
the
truth,
was
included
by
the
affiant
in
the
warrant
2007).
Furthermore, a defendant must show that the identified
falsehood or omission "was necessary to the finding of probable
cause." Rigaud, 684 F.3d at 173; see also Franks, 438 U.S. at 156.
Consequently, evidence procured through a challenged warrant may be
suppressed at a Franks hearing "only if the warrant application,
cleansed of any false information or clarified by disclosure of
previously withheld material, no longer demonstrates probable
-14-
cause."
2003).
had
ample
evidence
to
obtain
warrant,
including
Much of
existed
independently
of
Pelletier's
statements.
-15-
18 U.S.C. 472.
To convict a defendant of
possession under the act, the government must demonstrate that (1)
the defendant possessed a bill which was (2) counterfeit and that
-16-
Where a
Id. at 16.
A "general intent to
defraud third
United States v. Parr, 716 F.2d 796, 819 (11th Cir. 1983)
While Silva
-17-
party
challenges
the
trial
court's
jury
-18-
jury
to
principles.'"
understand
it
in
light
of
the
applicable
legal
Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Maguire, 918 F.2d 254, 268
(1st Cir. 1990)); accord United States v. Meadows, 571 F.3d 131,
145 (1st Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Valdivia, 680 F.3d
33, 44 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 565 (2012) (approving
the "use of evidentiary exemplars from the body of existing trial
evidence to illustrate the meaning of" legal principles).
The jury instructions issued in this case were neither
incorrect on the law nor unfairly prejudicial in favor of the
government. This court has previously recognized that a defendant's
possession of a large amount of counterfeit currency supports an
inference that the defendant possessed the currency with a future
intention of use.
-19-
the
governing
legal
standard
for
the
jury.
As
the
The
Conclusion
-20-