New Fourth Amendment Ruling Discusses Undercover Searches and Residential Entries While Recording
A Fourth Amendment search is illegal under two legal theories:
(1) where a suspect’s subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable is violated
(2) when the government physically occupies private property for the purpose of obtaining information while engaging in conduct not explicitly or implicitly permitted by the property owner.
Undercover Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agents, working with the Costa Mesa Police Department and a confidential informant, purchased methamphetamine and firearms from Daniel Alvarado. The transaction took place in room 352 of the Valencia Inn Motel in Anaheim, California, on Jan. 9, 2020. Subsequently, the ATF and CMPD officers—still undercover—made arrangements to buy more meth on Jan. 22. Alvarado, however, directed the officers this time to come to Room 302 of the same motel. It was soon determined that room 302 was rented by defendant Christopher Esqueda, who had already paid for a three-week stay.
Upon officers’ arrival, Alvarado opened the door and allowed the undercover officers to enter, where he introduced them to Esqueda. Unbeknownst to either Alvarado or Esqueda, the officers were surreptitiously wearing audio-video recording devices that captured the interactions in the motel room. After dealing with Alvarado for the purchase of the meth, the officers asked about firearms, specifically mentioning a “Derringer” Alvarado had earlier told the officers he had. At Alvarado’s direction, Esqueda produced the Derringer—subsequently determined to be a .22- caliber revolver—and handed it to an ATF agent, warning the agent that it was loaded. The ATF agent gave Alvarado $400 for the firearm.
The officers then left the room, still wearing their recording devices. Esqueda was indicted by a federal grand jury under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession of a firearm. (Alvarado is not a part of this prosecution.) Esqueda pled guilty after his motion to suppress was denied. Sentenced to two years in prison (plus three years of supervised release), Esqueda appealed.