Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02686/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02686-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Moises Flores-Sandoval
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2686

___________

United States of America, * 

* 

Appellee, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Nebraska.

Moises Flores-Sandoval, * 

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 11, 2004

Filed: May 11, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

A Nebraska federal jury convicted Moises Flores-Sandoval of conspiracy to

distribute and possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of

methamphetamine. On direct appeal, Flores-Sandoval argues that the district court1

Appellate Case: 03-2686 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2004 Entry ID: 1765822 
2

 Ultimately, after the driver of the vehicle had given his consent to search

and a drug dog had alerted on the trunk, Officer Lippold discovered a hidden

compartment in the Toyota's trunk containing eight bundles of methamphetamine.

3

 A California car is in violation of Nebraska law if it does not have both a

front and rear license plate. Neb. Rev. St. § 60-328 (an out-of-state motor vehicle is

in violation of Nebraska's law that requires a front and rear license plate if the state

in which the car is registered requires a front and rear license plate.)

-2-

erred in refusing to suppress evidence seized2

 from a vehicle during a traffic stop. We

affirm.

On February 18, 2002, Flores-Sandoval was a passenger in a red Toyota with

a California rear license plate. Officer Matthew Lippold of the Omaha Police

Department stopped the vehicle because he believed that it did not have a front

license plate–a requirement under California law.3

 It was later determined that the

vehicle did in fact have a front license plate that was partially obscured from view

because it had been mounted below the standard plate bracket.

Flores-Sandoval's sole argument on appeal is that Officer Lippold lacked

probable cause to stop the car because the vehicle did in fact have both a front and

rear license plate and was not in violation of California–or Nebraska–law. However,

a mistake of fact does not automatically negate the validity of the stop. Officer

Lippold was justified in making the stop if he had an objectively reasonable basis for

believing that the vehicle was not in conformity with Nebraska's traffic laws. United

States v. Sanders, 196 F.3d 910, 913 (8th Cir. 1999) ("The determination of whether

probable cause existed is not to be made with the vision of hindsight, but instead by

looking to what the officer reasonably knew at the time."). Thus, even if the Toyota

was not technically in violation of the Nebraska statute, if Officer Lippold reasonably

believed that the vehicle violated the statute, the stop was valid.

Appellate Case: 03-2686 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2004 Entry ID: 1765822 
-3-

Officer Lippold testified that he saw an empty front license bracket and

assumed that there was no license plate on the front of the car. If credited, Lippold's

testimony shows he mistakenly believed that Flores-Sandoval's car did not have a

front license plate, in violation of Nebraska law. There is nothing in the record before

this court to call into question the credibility determination made by the district court

that Officer Lippold believed he had probable cause to stop Flores-Sandoval's

vehicle. Officer Lippold's mistake was one of fact, not of law. So, we now turn to the

question of whether his mistake of fact was objectively reasonable.

Officer Lippold testified that he relied on a regular practice of observing

oncoming traffic–via his rear view mirror–and observing the light that bounced off

of the reflective surface on the front license plate of the approaching vehicle. His

observation of the Toyota led him to conclude–after seeing no reflection from the

front of the vehicle and an empty plate bracket–that the vehicle did not have a front

license plate. These perceptions, although flawed, were sufficiently reasonable to

provide probable cause to stop the vehicle in which Flores-Sandoval was traveling.

Following the stop, Lippold obtained consent from the driver to search the vehicle,

and Flores-Sandoval does not question the validity of the consent on appeal.

Therefore, because Officer Lippold had probable cause to stop the vehicle and

subsequently obtained consent to search the vehicle, we conclude that all of the

evidence seized during the traffic stop was admissible. Accordingly, we affirm the

district court's denial of Flores-Sandoval's motion to suppress.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2686 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/11/2004 Entry ID: 1765822