Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cr-00134/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cr-00134-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Manuel Navarro
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v.

Jose Manuel Navarro,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-cr-00134-JAM

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO SUPPRESS

The matter before the Court is Defendant Jose Manuel 

Navarro’s Motion to Suppress. Mot. to Suppress (“Mot.”), ECF No. 

14. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES 

Defendant’s motion.

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In April 2019, the Tri-County Drug Enforcement Team 

(“TRIDENT”) began an undercover operation in Placer and 

Sacramento Counties. TRIDENT Report, ECF No. 15-1. Over the 

course of the investigation, an undercover member of the team

(“UC”) communicated by phone with an unknown man suspected to be 

connected with a drug trafficking operation in Sinaloa, Mexico. 

Id. The man told UC he could supply up to 100 pounds of 

methamphetamines. Id. Ultimately, the man told UC he would send 

Case 2:19-cr-00134-JAM Document 21 Filed 01/08/20 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

him 65 pounds of methamphetamines. Id. On the morning of May 

20, 2019, Defendant and UC met in the parking lot of a Target in 

Sacramento. Id. UC asked to see the “product.” Id. Defendant 

told UC that all the product was in a hidden compartment in his 

vehicle, so he could not show it to him in the parking lot. Id. 

UC asked Defendant to follow him to a more secure location. Id. 

As UC drove past Defendant’s Ford truck, he noticed the truck had 

Arizona plates that ended in “91.” Id. UC relayed that 

information to the surveillance team. Id.

Around this time, Officer Sarabia, a California Highway 

Patrol (“CHP”) officer, saw Defendant make an unsafe lane change 

in violation of Vehicle Code § 26708(a). CHP Report, ECF No. 15-

2. Following the lane change, Officer Sarabia also observed 

Defendant following the vehicle in front of him too closely in 

violation of Vehicle Code § 21703. Id. As Officer Sarabia 

approached Defendant’s vehicle, he noticed Defendant moving onto 

the white lines in the road and that Defendant’s front windows 

were tinted in violation of Vehicle Code § 26708(a). Id. 

Officer Sarabia pulled Defendant over for these violations. Id. 

Officer Sarabia approached Defendant’s truck, requested his 

license, and asked him a series of traffic-related questions. 

Id. Officer Sarabia also asked Defendant where he was coming 

from and where he was going. Id. Defendant first said he was 

visiting his son on Madison Avenue, but then changed his answer, 

claiming he was going to visit family in Reno. Id. Based on 

these inconsistencies, Officer Sarabia asked Defendant to exit 

his truck and walk over to the patrol car. Id. 

As Defendant exited his truck, Sergeant Powell arrived at 

Case 2:19-cr-00134-JAM Document 21 Filed 01/08/20 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

the scene. Id. Sergeant Powell ran a records check on Defendant

while Officer Sarabia asked Defendant if he had anything illegal 

inside his vehicle. Id. After Defendant denied having any 

contraband, Officer Sarabia asked Defendant if he could search 

his truck. Id. Defendant signed the Spanish consent form

Officer Sarabia provided. Id. Officer Sarabia and his 

narcotics-detection dog walked around Defendant’s vehicle. Id. 

The dog alerted to several areas around and in the truck. Id. 

Officer Sarabia then searched the vehicle and discovered several 

cellophane-wrapped packages behind the rear seats. Id. Officer 

Sarabia placed Defendant in handcuffs and contacted the TRIDENT 

team for assistance. Id.

Upon arrival, members of the team field tested one of the

packages. Id. The package tested positive for methamphetamine. 

Id. Officers took the packages—68 in total—to the TRIDENT 

facility to be processed. Id. Defendant was placed under 

arrest. Id.

II. OPINION

Defendant moves to suppress evidence obtained as a result of 

Officer Sarabia’s seizure and subsequent search. Defendant 

contends the search and seizure were unlawful because Officer 

Sarabia (1) did not have reasonable suspicion to pull him over 

and (2) impermissibly prolonged the traffic stop. Mot. at 2–3. 

The Government argues that the investigatory stop was supported 

by reasonable suspicion, the stop was not unreasonably prolonged, 

and Defendant consented to a search of his vehicle. USA’s Opp’n 

to Mot. to Suppress (“Opp’n”) at 1, ECF No. 15. The Government 

Case 2:19-cr-00134-JAM Document 21 Filed 01/08/20 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

further argues the TRIDENT investigation supplied probable cause 

for the stop. Id. 

A. The Traffic Stop

1. Legal Standard

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits 

“unreasonable searches and seizures” by the Government. United 

States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002). Those protections 

extend to an investigatory stop of a vehicle “because stopping an 

automobile and detaining its occupants constitutes a 

seizure . . . even though the purpose of the stop is limited and 

the resulting detention quite brief.” United States v. Choudhry, 

461 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). 

Investigatory traffic stops are akin to the on-the-street 

encounters addressed in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Id. 

Accordingly, the same objective standard applies. Id. “[A] 

police officer may conduct an investigatory traffic stop if the 

officer has reasonable suspicion that a particular person has 

committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.” Id.

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

A traffic violation alone is sufficient to establish 

reasonable suspicion.” Choudhry, 461 F.3d at 1100 (citations 

omitted). In other words, when an officer has probable cause to 

believe a traffic violation has occurred, a stop of the vehicle 

is reasonable. Id. (citing Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 

810 (1996)). 

2. Analysis

Officer Sarabia had reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant 

for violating California’s traffic laws. Officer Sarabia claims 

Case 2:19-cr-00134-JAM Document 21 Filed 01/08/20 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

he observed Defendant commit four separate traffic violations. 

CHP Report at 3. Observing any one of these violations would 

have given Officer Sarabia the reasonable suspicion necessary to 

stop Defendant’s vehicle. Whren, 517 U.S. at 810 (“[T]he 

decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police 

have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has 

occurred.”) (emphasis added).

The aerial surveillance video of Defendant’s driving on the 

day in question does not persuade the Court that he made an 

unsafe lane change or followed the vehicle in front of him too 

closely. See Aerial Footage Screenshot, ECF No. 15–4. But it 

is clear Defendant traveled over the solid white lines in the 

road. See MVARS Footage Screenshot, ECF No. 15–5. Moreover, 

Defendant does not contend that Officer Sarabia lacked probable 

cause to believe the truck’s windows were unlawfully tinted. 

Mot. at 8. He simply contends the degree of tint on his windows 

was, in fact, lawful. Id. Officer Sarabia’s belief that 

Defendant was committing either of these traffic violations 

justified the subsequent traffic stop. Choudhry, 461 F.3d at 

1100. Officer Sarabia’s initial seizure of Defendant was 

lawful.

B. The Length of the Stop

1. Legal Standard

“A seizure for a traffic violation justifies a police 

investigation of that violation.” Rodriguez v. United States, 

575 U.S. 348, 354 (2015). But a seizure and investigation that 

is initially lawful may nonetheless become unlawful if it is 

unreasonably prolonged. Id. at 350–51 (citation omitted). The 

Case 2:19-cr-00134-JAM Document 21 Filed 01/08/20 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

tolerable duration of an investigatory stop is determined by the 

seizure’s purpose. Id. at 354 (citations omitted). Within the 

traffic-stop context, the mission of the seizure is “to address 

the traffic violation that warranted the stop and attend to 

related safety concerns.” Id. “Beyond determining whether to 

issue a traffic ticket, an officer’s mission includes ordinary 

inquiries incident to [the traffic] stop.” Id. at 355 (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). These inquiries include: 

checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are 

outstanding warrants, and inspecting the vehicle’s registration 

and proof of insurance. Id. The stop may last no longer than 

is necessary to effectuate its purpose. Illinois v. Caballes, 

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

During the time it takes to investigate the traffic 

infraction, an officer may also conduct certain unrelated 

checks. Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 355. For instance, use of a 

narcotics-detection dog—one that only reveals the possession of 

contraband—is permissible. Caballes, 543 U.S. at 409. However,

its use may not prolong the traffic stop “absent the reasonable 

suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an 

individual.” Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 355.

2. Analysis

Officer Sarabia did not unlawfully prolong the traffic 

stop. Officer Sarabia observed Defendant’s traffic violations 

at about 10:15 am. CHP Report at 3. He pulled Defendant over 

shortly thereafter. While Officer Sarabia asked Defendant 

routine traffic-related questions, Sergeant Powell arrived on 

the scene. Id. at 4. Officer Sarabia asked Sergeant Powell to 

Case 2:19-cr-00134-JAM Document 21 Filed 01/08/20 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

run a records check on Defendant. Id. A records check is 

routine incident to a traffic stop. Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 355. 

Officer Sarabia asked Defendant whether he could search 

Defendant’s vehicle while Sergeant Powell conducted that check. 

CHP Report at 5. Defendant consented to the search. See

Spanish Consent Form, ECF No. 15-2. Officer Sarabia conducted 

the search, found contraband, and arrested Defendant by 10:35 

am—only twenty minutes after the initial traffic violations. 

CHP Report at 5–6.

As the Government argues in its Opposition, the facts here 

are akin to those of Caballes. See Opp’n at 7 (citing Caballes, 

543 U.S. at 406). In Caballes, a state trooper pulled the 

defendant over for speeding. 543 U.S. at 406. While the 

trooper was writing a warning ticket, a second trooper arrived 

and walked his narcotics-detection dog around the defendant’s 

vehicle. Id. The dog alerted at the trunk, the troopers 

searched it, and the Defendant was arrested. Id. The encounter 

lasted less than 10 minutes. Id. As in Caballes, Officer 

Sarabia walked his dog around Defendant’s vehicle while Sergeant 

Powell ran a routine records check. The officers were still 

conducting the traffic stop when the dog sniff occurred. Unlike 

Rodriguez, the dog sniff did not occur after the traffic stop 

was over. 575 U.S. 348 at 352 (finding a dog sniff test 

impermissibly prolonged the traffic stop because it occurred 

eight minutes after the officers fully addressed the traffic 

violation and issued a written warning).

In sum, Officer Sarabia had the reasonable suspicion 

necessary to pull Defendant over. The undisputed facts reveal 

Case 2:19-cr-00134-JAM Document 21 Filed 01/08/20 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

that the dog sniff occurred while the officers were conducting a 

routine traffic investigation. Only about six minutes passed 

from the time when Officer Sarabia activated his sirens to the 

time Defendant signed the written consent form allowing officers 

to search his vehicle. The dog sniff occurred immediately after 

the Defendant consented to the search and only lasted about two 

minutes before the first positive alert. At no point did the 

Defendant revoke his consent. The stop was, thus, not unlawfully 

prolonged. And, once the dog alerted, Officer Sarabia had 

independent probable cause that justified further investigation.

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s Motion to Suppress.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2020

Case 2:19-cr-00134-JAM Document 21 Filed 01/08/20 Page 8 of 8