Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02691/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02691-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Miguel Corona-Ramirez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2691

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

Miguel Corona-Ramirez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 11, 2005

Filed: January 19, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and BYE, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

After a commercial wrecker failed to stop at a state weigh station, an Arkansas

state trooper stopped the wrecker. The trooper became suspicious because the

wrecker had New Mexico license plates, but was towing another truck with Georgia

license plates. The driver stated he was being paid $4500 to tow the truck, which

needed a new transmission and belonged to a passenger, Miguel Corona-Ramirez.

The trooper believed the towing cost exceeded the truck’s value and the cost to

replace the transmission. The trooper also saw an abnormal gap between the truck’s

gas filler neck and left rear wheel, indicating a modification to lift the truck bed to

hide contraband. After the trooper started a safety inspection and log check, the

Appellate Case: 04-2691 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2005 Entry ID: 1856637 
*

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas. 

-2-

driver and Corona-Ramirez signed forms consenting to a search of their trucks.

Officers found fifty-six pounds of methamphetamine inside oxygen tanks in the

towed truck. 

The Government later filed drug charges against Corona-Ramirez. After the

district court*

 denied Corona-Ramirez’s motion to suppress, Corono-Ramirez

conditionally pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

Corona-Ramirez appeals the denial of his motion to suppress. In reviewing the

denial of Corona-Ramirez’s motion to suppress, we review the district court’s factual

findings for clear error and the district court’s conclusions about probable cause and

reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle de novo. United States v. Mallari, 334 F.3d

765, 766 (8th Cir. 2003). 

Corona-Ramirez first asserts the officer lacked probable cause to stop and

search the vehicle. We agree with the district court that the trooper could reasonably

believe the wrecker’s driver violated state law when he failed to obey a sign directing

trucks and commercial vehicles to stop at the weigh station. The traffic violation

created probable cause to stop the wrecker’s driver. United States v. RamosCaraballo, 375 F.3d 797, 800-01 (8th Cir. 2004). 

Corona-Ramirez next argues the detention exceeded the proper scope of the

traffic stop. As the district court concluded, the investigation and detention of the

wrecker’s occupants after the initial traffic stop were reasonable and lawful. The

officers could expand the scope of investigation beyond the reason for the initial

traffic stop as the circumstances and reasonable suspicion dictated. United States v.

Foley, 206 F.3d 802, 806 (8th Cir. 2000). Almost immediately after stopping the

wrecker, the trooper noticed suspicious factors about the vehicle and its occupants

Appellate Case: 04-2691 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2005 Entry ID: 1856637 
-3-

that increased as the trooper carried out the routine tasks associated with the traffic

stop. These factors included the cost effectiveness of a New Mexico wrecker

transporting a utility vehicle to Georgia to fix a transmission, a strong smell of air

freshener, the presence of a radar detector, and presence of a Red Bull container, the

lack of luggage or clothing for the multistate trip, Corona-Ramirez’s avoidance of eye

contact with the trooper, a locked tailgate on the truck, and modifications to the truck,

including a hidden compartment under the wheel bed. The suspicious factors caused

the trooper to form a reasonable suspicion that criminal drug activity might be afoot.

The reasonable suspicion justified the trooper’s questions about whether there were

drugs in the vehicles and supported the trooper’s requests for consent to search them.

United States v. Pereira-Munoz, 59 F.3d 788, 791-92 (8th Cir. 1995). The twelve

minutes that elapsed between the start of the traffic stop and the driver’s consent to

search the wrecker did not amount to an unreasonable period of detention. CoronaRamirez consented to the search of his truck just a few minutes later. 

Corona-Ramirez also asserts he did not validly consent to search the truck.

The district court’s finding that Corona-Ramirez’s consent was voluntary is not

clearly erroneous. United States v. Smith, 260 F.3d 922, 924 (8th Cir. 2001). When

the trooper asked for consent to search the truck, he spoke to Corona-Ramirez in

Spanish and obtained both verbal consent and written consent on a form written in

Spanish. The trooper told Corona-Ramirez he had a right to withhold consent, made

no promises or misrepresentations to him, and did not use any coercive tactics.

Corona-Ramirez appeared to understand what the trooper was asking and his rights

in connection with the request. Under the totality of the circumstances, the trooper

could reasonably believe Corona-Ramirez consented to the search. United States v.

Guerrero, 374 F.3d 584, 588 (8th Cir. 2004). 

Corona-Ramirez last contends the scope of the search exceeded his consent to

search his truck. Even if the search of the oxygen tanks exceeded the scope of the

consent, the search was lawful because discoveries the officers made while acting

Appellate Case: 04-2691 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/19/2005 Entry ID: 1856637 
-4-

within the scope of the consent provided sufficient probable cause to search the entire

vehicle and its contents. Probable cause to search an entire vehicle includes any

containers located within the vehicle that could reasonably contain the object of the

search. United States v. Wells, 347 F.3d 280, 287 (8th Cir. 2003); United States v.

Alverez, 235 F.3d 1086, 1089 (8th Cir. 2000). 

We thus affirm the district court’s denial of Corona-Ramirez’s motion to

suppress. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2691 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/19/2005 Entry ID: 1856637