192823P.pdf   12/29/2020  United States  v.  Kelvin Baez
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  19-2823
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota   
   [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Chief Judge Smith and Loken, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal Case - Conviction and Sentence. After officers were granted 
   consent to enter and search hotel suite, officers proceeded through open 
   door to back room. Dogs alerted to locked armoire and car flashed its 
   lights when officers pressed car keys. Drugs found in back room and under 
   sink. Baez was arrested. After a search warrant was obtained, drugs and 
   firearms were found in armoire and in safe in the car. Coconspirator's 
   motion to suppress evidence was denied. Baez's motion to suppress evidence 
   found in back room, in safe in car, and incriminating statements were 
   denied. Following jury conviction and 168-month sentence, Baez appeals. 
   For complete discussion of the independent source and inevitable-discovery 
   doctrines; evidence found under the sink, in the armoire, and in the safe 
   in the Equinox was admissible. As for Baez's incriminating statements, 
   Maryland v. Pringle holding is hereby extended to hotel suites and police 
   had probable cause to believe everyone in hotel suite was involved in drug 
   trafficking, Baez's arrest was lawful, and the district court did not err 
   in denying motion to suppress his incriminating statements made while in 
   custody. Baez's innocent-intent jury instruction misstated the law and his 
   intent to assist law enforcement does not negate his mens rea. The 
   district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence relating 
   to his innocent-intent theory, as evidence was irrelevant and was 
   otherwise confusing. District court did not abuse its discretion in 
   denying motion to compel disclosure of Brady material after in camera 
   review, as it was not exculpatory and did not tend to impeach government 
   witness. Sentence that was varied downward by fifty percent was not 
   unreasonable. Judge Loken concurs in judgment and joins in opinion except 
   section 11.A.2.