United States v. Jorge Rios, Gabriel Rios and Fabio Tamayo, Jorge Rios and Fabio Tamayo
Docket: 1160
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; September 2, 1988; Federal Appellate Court
Judge Sifton denied the defendants' motions to suppress evidence obtained without a warrant during a pretrial hearing. The defendants argued that the factual findings supporting this denial were erroneous. The facts presented by the government revealed that on April 24, 1987, Detectives Healy and Falciano, investigating a drug-related homicide, identified an apartment associated with Jorge Rios. After being granted access by Gabriel Rios, the officers entered the apartment and engaged in casual conversation with the occupants, including appellant Tamayo. During this interaction, they inquired about drugs or weapons and were subsequently permitted to search the apartment, leading to the discovery of a suitcase containing eight kilograms of cocaine, a handgun, money counting machines, and ledgers documenting drug transactions.
While inspecting the apartment, Detective Healy noticed a vehicle arriving in parking space 13, which belonged to the occupants. When Jorge Rios entered the apartment, he seemed startled and dropped a bag, which Healy observed contained what appeared to be cocaine due to its partially open state. This prompted Rios's arrest and the subsequent search of his vehicle, resulting in the seizure of 91 grams of cocaine.
Appellants claim that the officers' testimony was implausible and seek to have Judge Sifton's findings overturned. They argue that their consent to the search was not credible and assert that they would have concealed evidence, such as ledgers and cocaine, rather than leave them in plain view. The appellants also criticize the officers' behavior, contending that seasoned detectives investigating a murder would not have casually conversed about sports or allowed a suspect to enter the kitchen unsupervised, where he could destroy evidence. They challenge the credibility of Officer Healy’s account regarding his firearm positioning during Jorge Rios' entry and question the likelihood of Healy's knowledge about a specific parking spot.
Additionally, the appellants highlight a pattern of suspicious behavior by Officers Healy and Falciano in previous investigations, suggesting that these officers have a history of fabricating evidence. They argue that this undermines Judge Sifton's finding of the officers' credibility.
The trial court's findings are generally not overturned unless clearly erroneous, particularly when based on witness credibility. Although the appellants raise doubts about the officers' testimony, the appellate court does not find sufficient grounds to conclude that a mistake was made. Judge Sifton thoroughly evaluated the officers' credibility, engaging with the witnesses and considering evidence presented by the defense. Therefore, the appellate court declines to overturn his findings. Furthermore, the burden of proof for a claim of insufficient evidence lies heavily on the defendant, making such claims challenging to substantiate.
The inquiry focuses on whether a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant, Tamayo, was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented. The evidence must be viewed favorably for the government, allowing for permissible inferences. Tamayo argues that the government failed to provide sufficient evidence for his convictions on conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute, claiming his mere presence at the scene does not establish possession.
Regarding possession with intent to distribute, the court states that mere presence is insufficient to establish possession; however, possession does not require exclusive control. Evidence indicated that Tamayo lived in the apartment and was present in close proximity to contraband when police arrived, which provides sufficient indicia of dominion and control. The jury could reasonably infer intent to distribute based on the quantity of cocaine and the presence of distribution paraphernalia.
For the conspiracy charge, mere association with conspirators does not suffice to prove participation. Evidence presented at trial established a cocaine distribution conspiracy, with substantial amounts of cocaine and related paraphernalia found in the apartment. Additionally, Tamayo's name appeared in records related to drug transactions, suggesting involvement in the conspiracy.
The court also addressed an evidentiary issue regarding references to a murder investigation associated with the apartment. The court found this reference relevant to explain the police's presence and ruled that any potential prejudice was mitigated by the judge's instructions to the jury, clarifying that the defendants were not implicated in the murder.
Ultimately, the court considered all arguments from the appellants and found them without merit, affirming the convictions.
