Victor Manuel Solorzano v. United States

For the first time on appeal, Mr. Solorzano raised a Fourth Amendment claim objecting to a state order to place a tracking device on his vehicle. He contended that the search was a constitutional violation and that it failed to meet the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 41, in that the state order was not base don probable cause and was installed during the night, although, the judge did not expressly authorize installation at night. During this unconstitutional and unreasonable - - night searcg, Solorzano assaulted law enforcement officers with a firearm - - because he thought they were common trespassers stealing. Mr. Solorzano sought to have the evidence of the assault excluded because: (1) the illegal search provoked the violent confrontation and was a but-for-cause of the Discovery of the evidence; (2) there was "prejudice" in the sense that the search might not have occurred or would not have been so abrasive if the Constitution and Rule 41 had been followed; and (3) there was evidence of intentional and deliberate disregard for the Constitution and Rule 41. In its analysis, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals apparently accepted arguendo, "that the state order was not a valid warrant" but denied the claim under the secong prong of the "plain error" analysis stating, "(Solorzano) cites no case law for the dubious proposition that a defendant's life-threatening assault on law enforcement officers should be excluded because they installed a warrantless tracking device. See United States v. Trejo, 610 F. 3d 308, 319 (5th Cir.2010) (a claim that is "novel" and "not entirely clear under the existing case authority "is doom(end)... for plain error"). His claim fails." Notwithstanding, in, United States v. Young, this Court reaffirmed that reviewing courts are the assess plain error claims "imaginatively" and to refrain from "exact(ing) from episodes in isolation abstract questions of evidence and procedure." 470 U.S. 1,16 (1985) (citing Johnson v. United States. 318 U.S. 189, 202 (1943) (Franfurter, J., concurring). In addition, this Court stated, Fourth Amendment errors should have been analyzed individually in the context of unreasonable searches and seizures." (ii)