Stabbing case brings broader argument to light
When Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s deputies kicked down Juan Elijio Magallon’s door on the morning of May 23, 2009, the authorities lacked a search warrant, didn’t have probable cause and were in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Superior Court Judge Rick Brown ruled last week.
By making this finding, Brown unleashed a much larger question that was grappled with yesterday in court: if the police illegally kick down a person’s door, what bits of information gathered as a result should be allowed to stand?
The case has shed light on the breadth, or lack thereof, of constitutional protections. According to Brown, Magallon’s home was illegally searched. But the results of that illegal search, which led to Magallon being charged with assault with a deadly weapon and several gang enhancements, are only inadmissible to a point, the judge said.
For Ben Bycel, Magallon’s attorney, the case offers a rare, local glimpse into a battle over the Fourth Amendment, which dictates how searches, seizures and warrants must be handled.
“The battle of the viability of the Fourth Amendment is going on each day,” he said after court yesterday, adding, “It’s being lost.”
An Assault
Magallon was arrested shortly after two UC Santa Barbara students were assaulted while walking down a street in Isla Vista.
One of the students was stabbed twice, while another escaped and watched from afar.
When officers responded, the victim who escaped gave police a description of the suspects.
Senior Deputy District Attorney Hilary Dozer, the prosecutor in the case, said one officer, after hearing the description, thought of Magallon.
So police went to Magallon’s apartment in the 6000 block of Picasso Rd. Dozer said they surrounded the building and saw a “silhouette” of a person near the suspect’s apartment that appeared to be carrying a bloodstained rag. (Dozer said it ended up being ketchup, or some sort of taco sauce). And it’s worth noting that the assault stemmed from an apparent robbery attempt, in which the suspects were seeking the students’ leftover Mexican food.
After spotting the stained rag, and fearing that evidence could be destroyed, Dozer said officers made the decision to enter the apartment and detain Magallon.
A Tainted Identification
Once downstairs, Magallon was handcuffed and placed in the back of a squad car, court documents show. A short time later, the unwounded victim arrived and identified Magallon as the prime suspect. As a result, Magallon was arrested and charged. If convicted, it would be his second strike under California’s three-strikes law. A third strike would send the man to prison for life.
When Brown ruled last Friday that police illegally entered Magallon’s home, the larger question of what this meant for the case remained to be answered.
Bycel argued yesterday that all observations by the officers, any statements by the defendant, all scientific and laboratory tests and “all fruits of the illegal entry,” including the detention and arrest and, perhaps most importantly, any later identifications of the defendant, should be thrown out.
To an extent, Brown agreed. He threw out, or suppressed, the officers’ observations while in the home, as well as the victim’s identification of Magallon at the scene. And since the wounded victim couldn’t positively identify Magallon in a picture lineup, this would seem like a resounding victory for the defense.
However, during Magallon’s preliminary hearing, both victims identified Magallon in court. The judge said he would allow these identifications to stand. In fact, as he ruled that sufficient evidence existed to hold Magallon over for trial, he cited the fact that two witnesses came to court and identified the defendant as the suspect.
Bycel insisted that the in-court identifications of his client were only possible because of the earlier, “tainted” identification, which was the result of an illegal search and seizure.
“Once you have the taint, anything that flows from the taint is a problem,” he told the judge.
Precedent
Judge Brown used a key U.S. Supreme Court case to justify what he would and would not include in granting the suppression motion.
The case, from 1979, involved a teenage boy who was illegally detained by police, photographed, and then arrested after several robbery victims identified him as the suspect.
Police erred when they told the boy he was being detained for truancy, when in reality this was merely a guise to see if he was the robbery suspect. The trial court granted the suppression motion and threw out the initial identifications, but, similar to the Magallon case, allowed the victims’ in-court identification. The court essentially found that the victims’ ability to identify the suspect in court was based on independent recollection (the victim saw the suspect’s face during the robbery), which was untainted by the illegal arrest.
But a court of appeals disagreed, and noted that without illegally detaining the youth, police would not have obtained the photograph that led to victims being able to identify the boy as the suspect.
In short, the court found that the in-court identification should have been excluded because it was a product of the violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court, however, sided with the trial court, noting that the “victim’s capacity to identify her assailant in court neither resulted from nor was biased by the unlawful police conduct committed long after she had developed that capacity.”
Insofar as this applies to the Magallon case, Brown seemed to agree.
But Bycel cited another Supreme Court case that involved the robbery of a convenience store. In it, police illegally arrested and booked a suspect into jail. Then police used the suspect’s booking photo to get a positive identification from the victim. Because the arrest was illegal, the court ruled that the identification should be inadmissible.
These cases follow closely the script of the Magallon case. The thread that ties them together is that the police, in some form or another, appear to have strayed from the law.
Bycel said he hopes to one day see what he called a steady “erosion” of Fourth Amendment rights restored. And the only way that will happen, he said, is if the Supreme Court hears cases like Magallon’s — a feat he probably won’t be able to see through, but that he said isn’t out of the question.
In his motion, Bycel summed up the crux of his argument this way: “One has a right to be secure in his own residence from invasion by armed brigands, even (or especially) badge-wearing ones.”
A Chainsaw
Bycel was careful to not criticize Brown’s ruling. He credited the judge for granting the suppression motion in the first place; in his 35-year run as a defense attorney, he said he’s only seen suppression motions granted a handful of times.
“I thought the judge wrestled with the decision and analyzed and evaluated the cases and came to this conclusion,” he said.
Dozer, the prosecutor, said that while he didn’t believe Brown should have granted the suppression motion, he understood the reasoning. He added that the judge noted it was a “close call,” and he did not characterize the officer’s actions as “disreputable.” He did not know how, or if, the officer would be disciplined.
Most important in Dozer’s eyes was that Brown didn’t suppress anything that sunk the prosecution’s case. “I’m pleased that in this case the suppression motion doesn’t have a devastating effect on the underlying case,” he said.
On the other hand, Bycel said Brown’s decision to grant the suppression motion, in the end, did little for his client.
In Bycel’s mind, Magallon’s presence in court yesterday was the direct result of police error — error that should not stand. Not because of guilt or innocence, but because he feels the Fourth Amendment is at stake.
While explaining why he was ruling against Bycel’s request to exclude the in-court identifications that pegged his client as the suspect, Brown said he didn’t think it fair to punish law enforcement.
Bycel countered that the court should not reward law enforcement when such errors are made. “I don’t view it as a punishment of law enforcement,” he told the judge. “I view this as inherently enforcing the Fourth Amendment.”
And according to Bycel, enforcing and defending the Fourth Amendment isn’t quite as popular as chopping away at the rights afforded by it: as he put it, “this won’t make the evening news.”
“The movement has been to cut away, dig and blast away, at the protections of the Fourth Amendment,” he said. “It’s sliced down the Fourth Amendment, and not with a scalpel, but with a chainsaw.”
So, who cares? Bycel said it’s difficult to care, until your door gets kicked in.
Comment on this article
Really? : 3/12/2010
"Magallon’s presence in court yesterday was the direct result of police error ..." - Defense Attorney
Hmm. I think it was the direct result of the fact that he was positively identidied by his victim. But who am I to judge. I guess the rule is that if you stab someone a few times, steal their food and make it back to your apartment with it, you're home free.
"So, who cares? Bycel said it’s difficult to care, until your door gets kicked in."
Or you get robbed and stabbed while walking out of a restaurant.
SB
suggestion : 3/12/2010
Aren't police alllowed to bring in a suspect for a line up like they do in the movies?
: 3/12/2010
The answer to the last question is NO, unless the suspect consents to coming to the police station. The victim must be brought to the suspect, or identified in a photo lineup of lookalike subjects.
There is nothing shocking in this report, except the liberal viewpoint of the judge. Many similar cases have been decided the other way, in favor of the police. This is Santa Barbara, however, where crooks generally get more consideration than the victims of heinous stabbings etc...
Californians should start getting used to being bulldozed by liberal judicial interpretation and the general love affair with criminals. The average law-abiding citizen has no rights-- they've been given to the crooks. Witness the recent tragedy of a young lady murdered by a known and remorseless sex offender who the DA's office refused to prosecute.
Enjoy what is left of your freedom while it lasts.
The Italian Frank Russo
I care. : 3/12/2010
I would rather "get robbed and stabbed while walking out of a restaurant" and deal with the consequences and subsequent LEGAL investigation of the crime than live in a police state that allows abuse of police powers. This is the kind of state practices of the Soviet Union, East Germany and Nazi Germany among others. I completely agree with the suppression. I think this will ultimately be a very interesting case study on 4th Amendment Constitutional rights if there are appeals. I look forward to following this ruling and this case as it proceeds through the justice system.
SV
WTF? : 3/12/2010
"So police went to Magallon’s apartment in the 6000 block of Picasso Rd. Dozer said they surrounded the building and saw a “silhouette” of a person near the suspect’s apartment that appeared to be carrying a bloodstained rag."
Here in SB we have super-police that can see that a rag is stained with blood (or tapatio) only by seeing the shadow of it. Thats just amazing.
Also, I think its ironic the Italian Frank Russo claims that law abiding citizens have had their rights taken and given to the criminals in the comments section of the article of the armed robber who had his fourth amendment rights violated. This article was the wrong place to make that claim, Frank.
Pow Ogad (ysaerg)
No one to blame but the cops : 3/12/2010
They totally blew it on this one. They knew who did it and got to aggressive in their apprehension. If the judge is correct, then the cops should have been properly trained as to what is a violation of rights. Remember Magallon was just a suspect, so barging in on him is illegal until the cops have Probably Cause. It also puts into question anything the cops found on this guy. IF they're willing to break the law to arrest him, why wouldn't they break the law to convict him aka plant evidence. They are the only one's to blame for not getting this guy. If I were the victim I'd be Pissed.
MB
: 3/12/2010
There's a reason we have the 4th amendment. Sucks the police dropped the ball here but that's the price you have to pay for a free society. WTF is up with seeing the "bloodstained(taco sauce) rag" from a shadow, explain to me how that works again without x-ray vision?
Yes, really. : 3/12/2010
"The court essentially found that the victims’ ability to identify the suspect in court was based on independent recollection (the victim saw the suspect’s face during the robbery), which was untainted by the illegal arrest."
The courts indulges in a fantasy.
"Hmm. I think it was the direct result of the fact that he was positively identidied by his victim."
Uh, no, the positive ID was made when Magallon showed up in court. Didn't you bother to read the article?
If you were robbed by someone but couldn't identify him well enough to pick him out of a lineup, but then the police break down some guy's door, gather incriminating evidence, arrest him, and you see the guy in court and he looks somewhat like the guy who robbed you, wouldn't you be quick to make a positive ID? I would. But the guy only got there because of illegal police action, and the law says that what flows from such illegal action is tainted and disallowed -- because to do otherwise makes toothless the Constituton's requirement for warrants.
ianam
"The average law-abiding citizen has no rights" : 3/12/2010
other than the right not to have their doors broken down, by the police a consideration that "conservatives" seem not to have the mental capacity to understand.
ianam
Why did they go straight to his house (Profiling???) and Iam white : 3/12/2010
The four fathers made the constitution to favor criminals a little(innocent until proven guilty), the reason was in England people were arrested and thrown in jail for nothing. That's why they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, people like it was said earlier if they are a career criminal they will be caught legally at some point. But right now we have more people in jail then any other country in the world. Even the People's Republic of China as less people in jail. Now thats what we are facing in the under budgeted prison system with to many people to pay for. What there needs to be is the police of the police. What there needs to be is a petty crime system and a hard crime system.
To much power is never good
The 2nd Amendment would've taken care of this : 3/12/2010
If those two students had been carrying with a legal CCW permit, then one less knife wielding thief would be running around town today. Let the police and coroner make a positive ID on the thief. No mistaken identity or procedural error there. How many innocent people have to be stabbed? The right to self defense is paramount. If someone pulls a knife on you, you have the right to self defense.
Sick of knife wielding trash
Really, Really : 3/12/2010
Yes ianam, I did read the article, obviously, you didn't.
"...downstairs, Magallon was handcuffed and placed in the back of a squad car, court documents show. A short time later, the unwounded victim arrived and identified Magallon as the prime suspect. As a result, Magallon was arrested and charged."
He was arrested that night, outside his apartment after being identified the victim.
SB
: 3/12/2010
The Italian Frank Russo pukes on all Gaucho fraternity tarts and kneejerk liberal burnouts who populate these blogs.
The Italian Frank Russo
Classic statement : 3/12/2010
“Once you have the taint, anything that flows from the taint is a problem...”
Ben you have immortalized everything "taint." Thank you SOOOOO much....Classic courtroom quote! And so true!
Yeah right
: 3/12/2010
"i would rather be stabbed" blah blah blah get off your high horse you have obviously never been punched in the face. things which are nice in theory don’t work when your intestines are coming out of your sliced open abdomen
you know what : 3/12/2010
Down the man
X
: 3/14/2010
SB
"A short time later the unwounded victim arrived and identified Magallon as the prime suspect." That would have been interesting to see and har. "'That man in the patrol car is the prime suspect officer." is that what we're to believe?
If there had been three guys in three patrol cars and he was picked out as the attacker I would be convinced but to have one guy setting in the back of a patrol car, handcuffed, doesn't convince me.
The uninjured victim admitted he fled from the attack, therefore, I believe his view of the attacker was very brief and traumatic. Anyone handcuffed in the back of a patrol car might well have been identified.
I think the court room identification is worthless. When events have progressed to that point identification is nearly a certainty. If the accused had been identified by the injured victim while in the hospital from a photo array I would accept the court room identification.
zevgoldman
: 3/14/2010
"Dozer said they surrounded the building and saw a “silhouette” of a person near the suspect’s apartment that appeared to be carrying a bloodstained rag." If the police saw the person didn't they see which apartment he entered?
"Dozer said it ended up being ketchup, or some sort of taco sauce). And it’s worth noting that the assault stemmed from an apparent robbery attempt, in which the suspects were seeking the students’ leftover Mexican food." Did the police analyze the stain on the rag to determine if it matched any of the ingredients found in the food that was the objective of the robbery? I trust that the defense sought such confirmation.
"After spotting the stained rag, and fearing that evidence could be destroyed, Dozer said officers made the decision to enter the apartment and detain Magallon." Does this indicate the police saw the person near the apartment enter Magallon's apartment?
Why didn't the police, who had the building surrounded, nap the man seen near the apartment before he did or didn't enter Magallon's apartment.
zevgoldman
It all depends whose door you kick down. : 3/15/2010
Kick down the door of someone living in Montecito, or Hope Ranch, and you'll be out of your job and on the street begging for doughnuts.
Kicking down anyone else's door is standard procedure.
The laws of the United States DO NOT APPLY to certain people.
Sue The Cops Personally : 3/16/2010
Sue the cops themselves in tort. THEY are Constitutional Guardians. THEY are suppossed to KNOW the very law they are HIRED to protect, and take an oath to defend and UPHOLD. When the COPS willfully violate your rights (as they a lot these days), and the court (in a gross conflict of interest) allows the ID, then they are acting OUTSIDE the law and can be sued. BOTH the judge AND the cops. But Shhhhh (looks around) THEY don't want YOU the people who pay their salary to know this. The judge of the court clearly violated the 4th amendment and his OATH with his ruling. The Constitution is the SUPREME LAW of the land. It means what it says and says what it means. The judges statement of not wanting to "punish" law enforcement???? WHAT? Law enforcement should have GOT A WARRANT, and made it LEGAL, PERIOD! Then there would be no back and forth. Nothing but keeping the LAWYERS employed to argue what YOU yourself (6th Amd.) can do FREE.
Contact Us!
411 E. Canon Perdido, Ste 2
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone (805) 564-6001
Fax (866) 716-8350
Click here to view the PDF Edition
Subscription Required
Tile Ads
Most Read Stories
Check out these most read stories.
- Santa Barbara Police Department cites 21 for driving without a license at weekend DUI checkpoints
- Searching for a cure: Dos Pueblos graduate pursues stem cell therapy to battle Lyme disease
- Santa Barbara budget showdown - 'heat is on' as police union, city management clash
- Santa Barbara church hit by '666,' graffiti four times in year
- Rising pension costs sink city's budget
Most Talked About Stories
Check out these recent talked about stories, and voice your opinion...
- Report suggests Santa Barbara Police Department targets illegal immigrants
- Santa Barbara Police Department cites 21 for driving without a license at weekend DUI checkpoints
- Arrests made in pot shop extortion
- ICE initiative targets dangerous illegal immigrants
- Santa Barbara County greenhouse marijuana bust near Highway 101 leads to two arrests; pot value as high as $80 million
- Forum tackles Santa Barbara's homeless issues
- Santa Barbara budget showdown - 'heat is on' as police union, city management clash
- Lois Capps, activists rally in support of women's reproductive rights
