USA v. Sanchez-Paz

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOV 10, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 10-11287
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00411-JSM-MAP-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PEDRO ALFONSO SANCHEZ-PAZ,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(November 10, 2010)
Before EDMONDSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Pedro Sanchez-Paz appeals his conviction of knowingly and intentionally
manufacturing and possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute it. 21 U.S.C.

-- 1 of 3 --

§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D); 18 U.S.C. § 2. Sanchez-Pedro entered a conditional
plea of guilt and challenges the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm.
We review a “district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence as a
mixed question of law and fact, with rulings of law reviewed de novo and findings
of fact reviewed for clear error.” United States v. Lindsey, 482 F.3d 1285, 1290
(11th Cir. 2007). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
government. Id.
Sanchez-Paz contends that detectives Alejandro Angulo and Theresa
Edmiston of the Polk County Sheriff’s Office violated the Fourth Amendment
when they recruited Tim Farrans, an employee of Progress Energy, to inspect an
electrical installation on property where Sanchez-Paz later was found.
Sanchez-Paz maintains that Farrans acted as a state agent during the inspection;
that Polk County Sheriff’s Office detective Theresa Edmiston’s affidavit in
support of the search warrant did not contain sufficient information about a
confidential source’s veracity or reliability; and that Edmiston deliberately and
recklessly included inaccurate and misleading information in the affidavit. These
arguments fail.
The district court did not err when it denied Sanchez-Paz’s motion to
suppress. The record supports the finding by the district court that Farrans acted
2

-- 2 of 3 --

as a private individual when he entered the property. Although Edmiston and
Angulo knew of and acquiesced in Farrans’s inspection of the installation, Farrans
entered the property for the private and legitimate purpose of investigating
whether electricity was being stolen. Farrans did not act as a state agent. The
record also supports the finding that Edmiston’s affidavit did not contain any
material misrepresentations and was more than sufficient to establish probable
cause for the search of the property. The affidavit established that a confidential
and reliable source provided information that someone at the property was
cultivating marijuana and stealing electricity, and that information was
independently corroborated by the detectives.
We affirm Sanchez-Paz’s conviction.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --