United States District Court, D. New Mexico
Alejandro Fernandez Attorney for Mr. Madrid-Quezada
Wisecup Assistant United States Attorney
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
VÁZQUEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Julian
Madrid-Quezada's Motion to Suppress Statements and
Tangible Evidence, filed November 1, 2018. Doc. 45. The
government filed a Response on November 15, 2018. Doc. 46.
The Court held an evidentiary hearing on May 8, 2019. Having
reviewed the briefs, testimony, exhibits, and relevant law,
for the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part and
denies in part Mr. Madrid-Quezada's Motion to Suppress.
case concerns Julian Madrid-Quezada's oral and written
statements made on February 16, 2017, on the day of his
arrest, as well as during a 2000 administrative encounter. On
January 23, 2018, Mr. Madrid-Quezada was charged in a
single-count Indictment with Reentry of a Removed Alien, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b). Doc. 27.
On November 1, 2018, he filed the instant Motion to Suppress,
arguing that his oral and written statements, as well as the
contents in his “Alien File” (A-File) should be
suppressed because they were made after an illegal arrest and
without proper advisement of his Miranda rights.
Doc. 45. Mr. Madrid-Quezada additionally argued that the 2000
statements should be suppressed because he was not given
Miranda warnings nor advised of the criminal
implications of his statements at the time the statements
were made in 2000. Doc. 45 at ¶ 12.
government responded that Mr. Madrid-Quezada is not entitled
to the suppression of any evidence because his rights were
not violated in the 2000 administrative encounter, nor were
they violated in the 2017 administrative encounter or
criminal custodial interview, the latter of which was
preceded by sufficient Miranda warnings. Doc. 46 at
Court held an evidentiary hearing on May 8, 2019, during
which it heard testimony from Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) Deportation Officer (DO) Dean King and Mr.
Madrid-Quezada. The Court took the Motion under advisement.
The following represents the Court's essential findings
of fact, based on the evidence submitted, as well as witness
testimony, as required by Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of
February 16, 2017, Julian Madrid-Quezada was encountered by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents at his residence
in Albuquerque, New Mexico as a part of a targeted
enforcement action. [Complaint Doc. 1 (Affidavit of
Deportation Officer Dean King)]. Mr. Madrid-Quezada had been
previously removed from the United States on August 17, 2000
and has convictions for alcohol-related conduct in 1999 and
2006, for which he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment.
Id.; see also Doc. 46-2 (I-867A Form
(Recorded Sworn Statement) dated 8/17/00). As a result of
this history, ICE was “made aware of his presence by
receiving a lead referral from one of [its] analysis
targeting divisions.” Hearing Transcript
(Tr.) at 5:14-15. The National Criminal Analysis
and Targeting Center Lead Referral (Lead Referral), dated
November 10, 2015 [Doc. 46-1], led to Mr.
Madrid-Quezada's arrest in the instant offense.
Deportation Officer Dean King, now a Supervisory Detention
Deportation Officer, was a Deportation Officer for five years
and has been employed with Homeland Security since 2003. Tr.
at 4:12-25. DO King testified that ICE typically takes the
lead referral and “further investigate[s] to try to
confirm whether or not that's the same person . . .
it's a targeted enforcement action at that point.”
Tr. at 5:23-25. He noted that lead referrals “could
be” for individuals who do have status in the United
States, which is something that the officers have to figure
out whenever they receive the referral. Tr. at 56:12-22. In
this case, the lead referral was dated 2015, but DO King did
not receive it “until before the operation.” Tr.
at 59:8-20. He estimated receiving it three or four days
prior to the operation. Tr. at 67:18-20.
also indicated that as soon as an officer gets a “lead,
” referring to the Lead Referral, he or she
“immediately . . . [orders] the A-File.” Tr. at
12:12-13. In this case, ICE “had an operation we were
getting ready to conduct” and “didn't have a
lot of time . . . to do a lot of, you know, surveillance or
investigation.” Tr. at 6:17-20. DO King reported that
there was not time in this case to “go out and try to
confirm whether or not” an individual is “really
here” because ICE “had to get so many targets
acquired and identified and presented to headquarters . . .
then we have so many days.” Tr. at 29:6-19. DO King was
not “really able to do a lot of pre-investigation
beforehand, ” and could not recall how they came to
search one-rather than a second, separately listed-address
for Mr. Madrid-Quezada. Tr. at 29:20-21, 32:7-10. Regardless,
Mr. Madrid-Quezada was a “viable target” who
“became part of the operation, ” which DO King
described as a “targeted enforcement action.” Tr.
at 5:25, 6:23, 30:7. The operation lasted three or four days
and involved the arrest of multiple people, “all
targeting previously removed felons and [aggravated]
felons.” Tr. 24:17-25:9, 26:23-25. As an individual
with prior convictions, Mr. Madrid-Quezada was listed on the
Lead Referral as an “Enforcement Priority: 1.”
Tr. at 31:1-10; Doc. 46-1. He was “added last minute,
” though it was not clarified whether Mr.
Madrid-Quezada was picked up on the first day of the
operation, the last, or somewhere in between. Tr. at 54:11.
time of the instant offense, DO King was within the Fugitive
Operations team under the Enforcement and Removal Operations
(ERO) Unit. Tr. 26:11-15. ERO regularly initiates criminal
prosecution, and DO King stated that he intended on the day
of the instant offense to initiate a prosecution in this
case. Tr. at 27:9-14. On the other hand, he also stated that
while Mr. Madrid-Quezada may have been suspected of being in
the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1326,
“it wasn't 100 percent conclusive.” Tr. at
30:22-25. He provided the following testimony in response to
defense counsel's questions:
Q: When you say that the lead referral doesn't always
indicate an intent to arrest for criminal prosecution, when
they're Enforcement Priority 1, you'd agree that
it's more likely it's going to be a criminal --
A: It's a possibility. But, again, sometimes -- if --
depending on the case, sometimes we have time to prepare a
criminal case and get it ready before we will make an arrest.
In this case, if I would have -- if we would have had time, I
could have --when I went to the Defendant's residence, I
would have had an arrest warrant, a criminal arrest warrant,
versus what I -- than what we had. But in this case, we
weren't 100 percent sure that we were going to go through
the prosecution of 1326 until after the arrest.
But, typically, it's unknown to the officers usually if
we can foresee a criminal prosecution or not. It depends on
the case. It's varied case-by-case.
Q: But your testimony is had you more time, you may have
sought a criminal arrest warrant?
A: Yes. I would have had enough probable cause to draft a
criminal complaint and try to get a judge to sign a criminal
arrest warrant based on the information I did have.
Tr. at 31:11-32:6. DO King reiterated later that “most
likely” the individuals would be referred for 1326
prosecution, “but it's not always the case.”
Tr. at 63:25-64:3. He also stated that if he “would
have had a little bit more information up front, I would have
- definitely would have came and got an arrest warrant from
the District Court in Albuquerque. That way this - you know,
we would have went a totally different route.” Tr. at
64:5-9. However, because of the time limit, the
“criminal initiation was done after the administrative
warrant.” Tr. at 64:12-13. DO King admitted, “I
would have had a criminal arrest warrant . . . we would have
- things would have been done differently. Upon encounter,
obviously, he would have been Mirandized on the spot.”
Tr. at 64:16-19. He reiterated several times thereafter that
“we could have done a lot more research” if he
would have had more time. Tr. at 67:21-24. DO King estimated
that he would have needed “a good week or two” to
research “all the facts upfront” and
“obtain a criminal arrest warrant.” Tr. at
67:25-68:12. When asked by the Court to clarify what he
needed to do, DO King stated that he would have verified the
residence and “make sure that . . . the person is the
same person who was prior removed.” Tr. at 68:17-24. DO
King then stated that he did not believe he had probable
cause for a criminal arrest when he initially encountered Mr.
Madrid-Quezada. Tr. at 69:6-13.
did receive an administrative warrant to detain or remove Mr.
Madrid-Quezada. Doc. 46 at ¶ 13, 46-3 (Ex. 3, I-205
Warrant of Removal/Deportation); Tr. at 7:3-4, 17:13-15. The
warrant is dated February 16, 2017, and signed by the ICE
Field Officer Director on February 17, 2017, the day after
Mr. Madrid-Quezada was arrested and interviewed. See
Doc. 46-3. There is no judicial branch officer, magistrate,
or judge involved in the process. Tr. at 24:5-7. The
administrative warrant is not an arrest warrant, and it would
not allow DO King to enter Mr. Madrid-Quezada's home to
arrest him. Doc. 46 at ¶ 16; Tr. at 19:4-5. There is no
time stamp on the administrative warrant, but it was obtained
the same day that Mr. Madrid-Quezada was taken into custody
at his home. Tr. at 20:23-21:10. DO King's report
indicates that the operation began at 10:00 a.m. on February
16, 2017. Tr. 21:13-20. However, Mr. Madrid-Quezada estimated
that the officers were at his home at approximately 6:30 a.m.
Tr. at 72:7-11. DO King testified that the I-205 Warrant
“was done during processing” of Mr.
Madrid-Quezada, “[a]fter he was put into custody,
” but DO King could not recall “if we had it in
the field, or if it was in his file at the office.” Tr.
at 22:14-24. He also had a I-200 Form (“Administrative
Arrest Warrant”), which precedes the I-205 and
similarly allows the ICE officer to take an individual into
custody if the officer encounters that person. Tr. at
also testified that he had the power to arrest someone for
immigration violations without a warrant. Tr. at
57:3-5. He admitted that there are limits on that authority.
Tr. at 57:17- 24. For example, he cannot go into a home and
speak to someone with an administrative warrant if he does
not have consent. Tr. at 58:4-8.
morning of February 16, 2017, DO King went to Mr.
Madrid-Quezada's home. DO King testified that he
approached a female outside of the building who said she knew
Mr. Madrid-Quezada, and without prompting from DO King, she
knocked on his door. Tr. at 7:12-18. He recalled that Mr.
Madrid-Quezada “walked out and made contact with [ICE].
. . .[he] came out to the vehicle in the parking area.”
Doc. 46 at ¶ 17; Tr. at 7:19, 8:2, 44:25-45:1. However,
Mr. Madrid-Quezada testified that he was in front of the door
when he was immediately handcuffed after affirming his name
to the three officers. Tr. at 72:22-73:8. After being
arrested, Mr. Madrid-Quezada testified, he was “pulled
 out” of the door and saw two officers “further
ahead” with rifles. Tr. at 73: 13-18.
stated that the officers identified themselves as immigration
officers, employed with Homeland Security, in addition to
being dressed in vests that have markings indicating their
affiliation. Tr. at 8:9-12, 45:4-12, 74:6-7. There were
approximately five or six other officers in the yard with DO
King, each with their own unmarked SUV. Tr. at 8:21, 26:2-10,
45:13-18, 74:1-3. Each officer was carrying a firearm, at
least one of whom was carrying a rifle that was not
concealed. Tr. at 45:19-46:9. DO King believed that
“two or three” officers approached the residence,
while the rest of the team “usually” or
“probably” remained in the outlying area. Tr. at
response to being asked his nationality, DO King stated that
Mr. Madrid-Quezada said, “I have been previously
removed from the United States.” Tr. at 47:11-25,
57:10-12. Mr. Madrid-Quezada denied making such a statement;
rather, he stated that he told ICE he was a resident,
“and they said that didn't matter.” Tr. at
74:10-11. Mr. Madrid-Quezada recalled a Spanish-speaking ICE
officer telling him “that they were cleaning up the
area” on President Trump's orders. Tr. at
were asked of Mr. Madrid-Quezada over a short period of time,
although DO King could only estimate what was
“typical” of such encounters: “anywhere
from 2 or 3 minutes to 10, 15 minutes.” Tr. at
48:14-16. When the Court asked DO King about the complexity
of these questions, he indicated Mr. Madrid-Quezada answered
“yeah” and would repeat the questions back to DO
King or respond with an action-such as producing his
identification when asked whether he had it on him. Tr. at
60:15-25. He could not recall whether Mr. Madrid-Quezada
answered using more than one or two words, and admitted that
the questions did not call for long explanations. Tr. at
61:13-15, 62:5-7. DO King also testified that Mr.
Madrid-Quezada claimed to be a painter, but Mr. Madrid
Quezada explained on direct that he is a roofer, not a
painter. Tr. at 60:20, 71:19-22.
stated that Mr. Madrid-Quezada “produced a New Mexico
identification card” at DO King's request, which
was made in English. Tr. at 8:12-13, 48:5-11. DO King added,
“He spoke real good English.” Tr. at 8:12,
55:13-17. He noted that he offered to speak to Mr.
Madrid-Quezada in Spanish, but “he indicated he was
very comfortable in English” and that English was his
primary language. Tr. at 54:18-25, 55:12-13, 61:3-4. DO King
admitted that his Spanish is limited. Tr. at 61:23.
Meanwhile, Mr. Madrid-Quezada testified that he told the
officers he could “speak some English, but you have to
speak very slowly to me, because if you do speak fast, I
won't be able to understand you.” Tr. at 76:10-17.
Mr. Madrid-Quezada has achieved a fifth-grade education, and
took classes in English but has never attended
English-speaking classes. Tr. at 80:3-9. He acknowledged that
he “sometimes” speaks in English to his roofing
clients, and his children also speak to him in English but do
so slowly. Tr. at 78:12-15, 78:20-79:2, 79:12-18. Mr.
Madrid-Quezada noted that he feels “very at ease”
with his children, which makes it easier to understand
English than when he is nervous. Tr. at 79:19-23. Similarly,
he stated there are other English speakers present when he
needs to speak to his roofing customers in English. Tr. at
the “identification was made, [ICE] placed the subject
- the Defendant under arrest and took him to the office for
further interview and questioning.” Tr. at 8:17-19. DO
King testified that the ICE team “got out of the area
as quick as possible.” Tr. at 9:10.
Madrid-Quezada was then transported to a local ICE office. In
the police car, DO King recalled that Mr. Madrid-Quezada was
“talking about his situation . . . with his ex-wife,
and he was detailing . . . what happened with his divorce,
” though Mr. Madrid-Quezada only recalled asking,
“What was going to happen to me.” Tr. at
62:22-25, 80:19-81:1. DO King denied asking Mr.
Madrid-Quezada questions, and could not recall how the topic
came up. Tr. at 63:8-19. DO King went on ...