United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S
SECOND MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURT'S DENIAL OF MOTION TO
MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendant's Second
Opposed Motion for Reconsideration of Interlocutory Order
Denying Motion to Suppress Statements and Evidence, filed
January 10, 2019 (Doc. 93). Having reviewed
the parties' pleadings and the applicable law, the Court
finds that Defendant's motion is not well-taken and,
therefore, is denied.
(“Ethan”) is charged with one count in violation
of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), and one count in violation of 18
U.S.C. §844(i), in connection with making an explosive
device and placing it under his former girlfriend's bed.
Fortunately, the device did not detonate.
3, 2018, following a lengthy three-day hearing, the Court
denied Defendant's motion to suppress self-incriminating
statements made to law enforcement and evidence which was
found subsequent to a search. Doc. 68. In its decision, the
Court determined that after repeated viewings, the
audio/visual lapel camera (“bodycam”) footage
recorded before and during law enforcement agents' entry
into the Guillen residence indicated that Defendant gave
express permission for the agents to enter the residence,
“. . . both orally and by his actions in stepping aside
. . . consistent with the agents' testimony.” Doc.
68 at 8.
then sought reconsideration of the Court's findings
regarding whether law enforcement's entry into the
Guillen residence violated Defendant's Fourth Amendment
rights, seeking to supplement the record with a
“forensic audibility analysis” of the bodycam
footage which was introduced at the hearing on
Defendant's motion to suppress. Doc. 69. Defendant
explained that he sought clarification as to whether it was
Defendant or his brother Tyler Guillen who spoke the word
“Sure” in inviting agents into the Guillen home.
Doc. 69 at 1-4. The Court denied this first motion for
reconsideration, reiterating that:
. . . after repeated viewings, it appears that Ethan said
“Sure” to the agents' second request to come
inside, taking a step back while Tyler stepped off to the
side in order to allow the agents to come in.
Doc. 72 at 2. The Court also noted that because it was
undisputed that Tyler consented to the agents' entry,
nothing would be gained by enhancing the video recording
because “. . . Tyler had authority to allow law
enforcement into the home and there was no evidence that
Ethan objected. Id.
now returns to Court with a Second Motion for
Reconsideration, this time armed with an
“enhanced” version of the same bodycam footage
taken from Detective Larranaga's lapel camera showing the
agents' entry into the Guillen home; and a forensic
report by Mr. Michel outlining the methods and procedures
used to create the enhanced material.
submits two supplemental exhibits with this motion:
• Exhibit A is an “enhanced version of about 60
seconds of the bodycam footage that was part of the
Government's Exhibit 1, Part 2. Doc. 94.
• Defendant also submits a “Forensic Examination
Report” from Joshua Michel, who Defendant describes as
a forensic audio analyst employed by Roloff Digital
Forensics. Doc. 96-1. In the report, Mr. Michel describes how
he amplified the audio, reduced ambient noise, and
transcribed the first approximately 61 seconds of audio.
After he “clarified” the audio, Mr. Michel
transcribed the conversation and concluded that it was
Defendant's brother rather than Defendant who said
“Sure” to the agents' request to enter the
house and talk. Doc. 96-1 at 5.
hopes that this “enhanced verbal exchange” will
persuade the Court to modify its findings concerning (1) the
legal sufficiency of Ethan's purported consent to the
agents' entry into the residence; and (2) which
brother-Ethan or Tyler Guillen-gave his consent to the
agents' initial entry.