Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03897/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03897-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edgar E. Bracamontes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable David M. Ebel, United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth

Circuit, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3897

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Edgar E. Bracamontes, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 18, 2010

Filed: August 5, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, EBEL,1

 and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. 

___________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Edgar Bracamontes pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, and criminal forfeiture, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853,

on the condition that his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress be

Appellate Case: 09-3897 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2010 Entry ID: 3690569
2

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable

Thomas D. Thalken, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska.

-2-

preserved. The district court2

 sentenced Bracamontes to forty-eight months’

imprisonment. Bracamontes appeals the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm.

I. 

At 12:10 p.m., December 30, 2008, Officer Aaron Hanson of the Omaha Police

Department initiated a traffic stop of an automobile bearing California license plates

that was following the vehicle in front of it too closely, in violation of Nebraska law.

The stop was recorded by the patrol vehicle’s mounted camera. Hanson approached

the vehicle and requested that the driver, Bracamontes, produce a driver’s license,

vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. Bracamontes was unable to produce a

license, but provided a California identification card and registration that showed that

the vehicle had been registered recently. Hanson observed a woman and an infant in

the back seat and requested that Bracamontes exit the vehicle. After briefly speaking

to Bracamontes outside the car, Hanson requested that he sit in the patrol vehicle,

which was also being occupied by a drug-detection dog. 

After Bracamontes was seated in the front seat of the patrol vehicle, he told

Hanson that he had been visiting some cousins in Des Moines for a couple of days and

that he was returning to California. Hanson then returned to Bracamontes’s vehicle

and opened the driver’s side door to obtain the vehicle identification number. Hanson

spoke to the passenger, Veronica Bracamontes, Bracamontes’s wife, who provided her

temporary California license and stated that they had been visiting her husband’s Aunt

Maria for several days, although she did not know where. Hanson returned to the

patrol vehicle and radioed dispatch for identification and warrant checks. Hanson

further questioned Bracamontes about his travels and Bracamontes explained that they

had been visiting cousins in Minneapolis and that he had no aunt there. 

Appellate Case: 09-3897 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2010 Entry ID: 3690569
-3-

Dispatch confirmed that Bracamontes did not have a valid license. Hanson told

Bracamontes that he was going to give him a courtesy citation for following too

closely and operating without a license. After Bracamontes signed the paperwork,

Hanson shook hands with him and said, “we are all done.” As Bracamontes began

exiting the patrol vehicle, Hanson then asked if he could ask him a few more

questions. Bracamontes agreed, and Hanson asked him to return to his seat in the

patrol vehicle. Responding to Hanson’s questions, Bracamontes indicated that he did

not have weapons, drugs, or large sums of currency. Hanson noted that Bracamontes

became increasingly nervous and that his voice became soft and difficult to discern.

Hanson asked whether he could search the vehicle. Bracamontes was hesitant to agree

and Hanson asked again, providing additional options, such as searching the car at

another location or having Bracamontes’s wife and child wait in the patrol vehicle.

Bracamontes declined to consent to the search, at which point Hanson informed

Bracamontes that he was going to lead the drug-detection dog around the vehicle. As

Hanson approached the vehicle to inform Mrs. Bracamontes about what he was doing,

Bracamontes beckoned him over and told him that there was use-quantity cocaine

between the driver’s seat and the center console of the car. Hanson informed

Bracamontes of his Miranda rights and awaited the arrival of another officer. Hanson

found two baggies containing cocaine and Bracamontes was arrested. The vehicle

was moved to the police impound lot, where a search revealed an after-market

fabricated compartment, accessed by removing the windshield, which contained more

than $68,000 and more than one kilogram of cocaine. 

II. 

In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we review the district court’s

findings of fact for clear error and its application of law de novo. United States v.

Lopez, 564 F.3d 1001, 1003 (8th Cir. 2009). 

Appellate Case: 09-3897 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/05/2010 Entry ID: 3690569
-4-

Bracamontes argues that the district court erred in concluding that there was

reasonable suspicion to expand the traffic stop and that his confession, the narcotics,

and the money should have been suppressed. The government responds that Hanson’s

observations during the traffic stop were sufficient to support a reasonable suspicion

of criminal activity and thus justify additional investigation. 

“An officer who observes a violation of the law has probable cause to initiate

a traffic stop, and such a stop comports with the Fourth Amendment.” United States

v. Peralez, 526 F.3d 1115, 1119 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434

U.S. 106, 109 (1977) (per curiam)). The officer may conduct an investigation that is

reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that initially justified the stop.

United States v. Fuse, 391 F.3d 924, 927 (8th Cir. 2004). Additionally, the officer

may ask routine questions such as the destination, route, and purpose of the trip, and

whether the officer may search the vehicle. United States v. $404,905.00 in U.S.

Currency, 182 F.3d 643, 647 (8th Cir. 1999). The occupants of the vehicle may be

detained “while the officer completes a number of routine but somewhat

time-consuming tasks related to the traffic violation, such as computerized checks of

the vehicle’s registration and the driver’s license and criminal history, and the writing

up of a citation or warning.” Id. “A constitutionally permissible traffic stop can

become unlawful, however, ‘if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to

complete’ its purpose.” Peralez, 526 F.3d at 1119 (quoting Illinois v. Caballes, 543

U.S. 405, 407 (2005)).

“To continue to detain a vehicle’s occupants after the initial stop is completed,

the officer must have been aware of particularized, objective facts which, taken

together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant suspicion that

a crime is being committed.” United States v. Shafer, 608 F.3d 1056, 1062 (8th Cir.

2010) (quotation omitted). “Whether an officer has reasonable suspicion to expand

the scope of a traffic stop is determined by looking at the totality of the circumstances,

Appellate Case: 09-3897 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/05/2010 Entry ID: 3690569
-5-

in light of the officer’s experience.” Id. (quoting United States v. Gill, 513 F.3d 836,

844 (8th Cir. 2008)) (quotation omitted). 

Bracamontes does not contest the legality of the initial stop. By the time

Hanson had completed the citation, the amount of time otherwise justified by the

initial traffic stop had expired. Hanson had reasonable suspicion to expand the scope

of the traffic stop, however, because Bracamontes and his wife gave conflicting

stories, following which Bracamontes changed his story by saying that the visit had

taken place in Minneapolis rather than Des Moines. He also said that he had no aunt

in Minneapolis. Bracamontes’s statements were internally contradictory and

contradicted his wife’s account of their journey, thus establishing the requisite

reasonable suspicion to detain him for further investigation. See United States v.

Pulliam, 265 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2001) (holding that reasonable suspicion was

established by motorist’s and passenger’s contradictory accounts); United States v.

Edmisten, 208 F.3d 693, 694 (8th Cir. 2000) (passenger’s conflicting statements

justified motorist’s further detention). 

We conclude that the totality of the circumstances supported Bracamontes’s

limited additional detention and that Hanson’s additional questions and the

deployment of the drug-detection dog did not violate Bracamontes’s Fourth

Amendment rights. 

III. 

The judgment is affirmed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3897 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/05/2010 Entry ID: 3690569