United States v. Hernandez-Garcia (4th Cir. 2025):
Re-Affirming a Low “De Minimis” Threshold for the Interstate-Commerce Element in RICO & VICAR,
and Limiting the Reach of the §3501(c) Six-Hour Presentment Rule

1. Introduction

In United States v. Jose Hernandez-Garcia (consolidated with appeals by co-defendants Jose Ordonez-Zometa and Jose Ortega-Ayala), the Fourth Circuit confronted a sweeping set of challenges arising from the grisly murder of a 16-year-old gang member by MS-13’s “Los Ghettos Criminales Salvatruchas” clique (“LGCS”) in Maryland. The three defendants were tried jointly and convicted of:

• RICO conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d);
• Conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering & substantive VICAR murder, 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5) & (a)(1);
• Conspiracy to destroy/obstruct evidence, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1) & (k).

On appeal, the defendants attacked (i) multiple suppression rulings (vehicle stop, custodial interrogation, digital & residential searches); (ii) denial of a new-trial motion tied to allegedly exculpatory cell-site data; and (iii) the sufficiency of the interstate-commerce nexus for RICO and VICAR. Judge King, writing for a unanimous panel, affirmed across the board and, in doing so, clarified several doctrinal points that future litigants—especially in organized-crime prosecutions—must heed.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Vehicle stop & arrest: A valid state murder warrant plus probable cause under the automobile exception justified the traffic stop and arrest of Ordonez-Zometa; no undue delay or pretext invalidated the seizure.
• Custodial statements: Despite a detective’s misstatement that silence could be used “in a bad light,” the defendants’ Miranda-waived statements were voluntary; any error was harmless in light of overwhelming evidence.
• Digital & residence warrants: Affidavits established a substantial basis to believe evidence would be found on Ortega-Ayala’s phones, Facebook account, and in his home; alternatively, officers relied in good faith.
• §3501(c) presentment: The six-hour rule applies only after a federal arrest; here the defendants were in state custody, so §3501(c) was inapplicable.
• New-trial motion: The district court correctly applied the distinct Rule 29 (acquittal) and Rule 33 (new trial) standards; the omitted cell-site datum did not warrant a new trial.
• Interstate-commerce element: Western Union transfers to El Salvador, cross-state Uber trips, cell-phone use, and social-media distribution of the murder video easily satisfied the “de minimis” commerce nexus for both RICO & VICAR.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Fourth-Amendment vehicle stop: United States v. Hensley (outstanding warrant suffices), Whren v. United States (subjective motives irrelevant), and Brigham City v. Stuart (objectivity principle) guided the court in validating the stop.
• Search-warrant analysis: Illinois v. Gates (totality of circumstances) and United States v. Leon (good-faith exception) underpinned the probable-cause and good-faith rulings.
• Custodial interrogation: Miranda v. Arizona, Colorado v. Connelly, and Fourth-Circuit cases such as United States v. Holmes informed the voluntariness analysis.
• §3501(c) scope: The panel relied heavily on United States v. Alvarez-Sanchez, where the Supreme Court restricted the six-hour rule to federal arrests.
• Interstate-commerce nexus: The court drew on its own precedents—Cornell, Barronette, Zelaya, and Gray—and sister-circuit authority (Mejia, Delgado) to reaffirm the low “de minimis” bar.

B. Legal Reasoning in Depth

1. Vehicle Stop & Arrest. Knowledge of a valid felony warrant provided complete justification. Even without the warrant, a “gold Nissan with a black hood”—matching the Virginia BOLO, observed at the suspected murder scene—gave probable cause under the automobile exception. The court refused to scrutinize officers’ alleged tactical motives, re-emphasising objective reasonableness and the bar on “subjective intent” inquiries.
2. Voluntariness of Statements.
   • Physical conditions (handcuffs, several hours’ wait) were unremarkable and included food, water, and restroom breaks.
   • Emotional pressure (hearing children cry) was not exploited; no promises or threats about family safety were made.
   • The detective’s legal misstatement did not overbear will; absent coercive exploitation, a single misstatement cannot render a confession involuntary. Even if erroneous, the admission was harmless because of “abundant” independent evidence.
3. Search Warrants. The affidavits provided concrete ties:
   • Residence—defendant returned home minutes after body disposal ⇒ likelihood of blood, weapons, clothing, or digital media.
   • Phones—gang practice of filming murders and communicating via messaging apps.
   • Facebook—MS-13’s known social-media use; need to map conspirators.
   The warrants described target data with sufficient particularity, defeating the “general warrant” argument. Even if they had not, Leon’s good-faith shield applied.
4. §3501(c) Presentment. By tethering the six-hour clock to “offenses against the laws of the United States,” Alvarez-Sanchez foreclosed the argument. The defendants were held solely under state process; federal charges were filed a year later.
5. Rule 33 Motion. The district judge articulated and applied the distinct Rule 29 and Rule 33 standards. The jury had already heard about the omitted cell-site data point; counsel argued it in summation; no miscarriage of justice warranted a new trial.
6. Interstate-Commerce Nexus. The court listed multiple interstate contacts: Western Union transfers, cross-border Uber trips, interstate cell networks, and El Salvador phone calls. Any single one would pass the “de minimis” test; together they easily satisfied RICO and VICAR. The ruling continues the Fourth Circuit’s trend of finding the element met whenever modern instrumentalities of commerce are employed.

C. Impact of the Decision

• Prosecutorial road-map. The opinion supplies prosecutors with a template for proving interstate-commerce in gang cases: highlight money transfers, rideshare trips, social-media use, and telephone calls—even if none involves traditional “business.”
• Digital-evidence warrants. Investigators may rely on generalized but fact-supported knowledge of gang digital habits; specificity arises from context, not file-by-file enumeration.
• Custodial-statement litigation. Minor Miranda misstatements will rarely void confessions absent demonstrably coercive leverage; courts will undertake harmless-error review.
• §3501(c) boundaries. Defense counsel must show federal arrest/custody before invoking the six-hour safe harbor. Joint investigations with state authorities will not convert state custody into federal custody without a federal complaint or detainer.
• Plain-error preservation. The ruling underscores that failure to raise Fourth-Amendment “delay” theories below triggers plain-error review, a nearly insurmountable hurdle.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• RICO – A statute allowing federal prosecution of individuals who conduct or participate in an “enterprise” through a pattern of specified crimes (“racketeering”). Requires a minimal effect on interstate commerce.
• VICAR – Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Act; criminalises violent acts (e.g., murder) done to advance position in a racketeering enterprise. Shares RICO’s commerce requirement.
• “De Minimis” Interstate-Commerce Nexus – The government need only prove a non-trivial connection between the enterprise’s activities and interstate/foreign commerce (e.g., use of cell towers, interstate wire transfers).
• §3501(c) Six-Hour Rule – A confession obtained more than six hours after a federal arrest and before presentment is inadmissible unless delay is reasonable. Does not apply to state arrests.
• Good-Faith Exception (Leon) – Evidence seized under a facially valid warrant will not be suppressed if officers acted “objectively reasonably,” even if the warrant is later found defective.
• Automobile Exception – Police may search (or stop for search of) a vehicle without a warrant when they have probable cause to believe it is an instrumentality or contains evidence of a crime.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Hernandez-Garcia is most notable for two doctrinal clarifications:

1. The Fourth Circuit cements a very low bar for the interstate-commerce element in RICO/VICAR prosecutions, explicitly approving reliance on everyday modern tools—Western Union, ride-sharing, cell phones—to meet that requirement.
2. By invoking Alvarez-Sanchez, the panel forecloses §3501(c) arguments where defendants are initially held on state charges, even in collaborative investigations.

Beyond these core holdings, the opinion reinforces longstanding principles on objective Fourth-Amendment analysis, the resilience of digital-evidence warrants under Gates/Leon, the high threshold for overturning jury verdicts via Rule 33, and the limited reach of isolated interrogation errors. Collectively, the case provides prosecutors, defense attorneys, and district judges with clear guidance on investigative boundaries and trial-stage safeguards in complex gang-related prosecutions.