United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-1403

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

Martin Palacios-Suarez, Also Known * District of Iowa.

as Martin Palacios, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 12, 1998

Filed: June 24, 1998

___________

Before McMILLIAN, ROSS, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Sergeant C. Thompson of the Nebraska State Patrol stopped a car near Omaha,

Nebraska, because he believed that the car’s tinted windows violated Nebraska law.

Sgt. Thompson asked the driver, Martin Palacios-Suarez, for his license and

registration. Mr. Palacios produced a New Mexico driver's license and a Texas

registration for the car.
The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the

1

Southern District of Iowa.

-2-

Sgt. Thompson directed Mr. Palacios to wait in the passenger seat of the patrol

car while he ran a computer check on Mr. Palacios’s license and criminal history.

Sgt. Thompson then asked Mr. Palacios about his occupation and the nature of his trip;

Mr. Palacios responded that he was a landscaper and that he and his family were on

their way to visit relatives in Perry, Iowa. Sgt. Thompson testified that he thought it

odd that someone would take such a long drive for a short, two- or three-day stay,

especially a landscaper at the height of the summer landscaping season.

Sgt. Thompson also testified that Mr. Palacios was extremely nervous and did not make

eye contact during the questioning.

Based on his suspicion, Sgt. Thompson radioed for a canine unit. Shortly

thereafter (approximately nine minutes after the initial stop), Omaha Police Officer

Matthew Lippold arrived with a drug-sniffing dog. Sgt. Thompson asked Mr. Palacios

several times for his consent to search the vehicle, and Mr. Palacios gave it. The dog

soon alerted officers to the presence of drugs behind the driver’s-side door, where the

officers located approximately ten kilograms of cocaine and one pound of

amphetamine. The officers then arrested Mr. Palacios and his wife.

Mr. Palacios was indicted for conspiring to distribute cocaine and amphetamine.

See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), § 846. The district court denied a motion to suppress the

drugs. After entering a conditional guilty plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2),

Mr. Palacios appealed. We affirm the judgment of the district court.1

I.

Mr. Palacios argues, first, that the initial stop was illegal since the Nebraska law

that prohibits tinted windows applies only to vehicles that are, or are required to be,

registered in the state. Sgt. Thompson believed, incorrectly, that the law applied to
-3-

Mr. Palacios’s vehicle and therefore, Mr. Palacios asserts, Sgt. Thompson had no

objectively valid reason to stop the car in the first place. Mr. Palacios asks us to

conclude that the district court should have suppressed the fruits of the subsequent

search because the initial stop was illegal. 

As the district court recognized, even if the initial stop of Mr. Palacios’s vehicle

violated the Fourth Amendment, any evidence discovered in it thereafter is nevertheless

admissible if Mr. Palacios’s consent to the search was “ 'sufficiently an act of free will

to purge the primary taint.' ” United States v. Ramos, 42 F.3d 1160, 1164 (8 Cir.

th

1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1134 (1995), quoting Wong Sun v. United States, 371

U.S. 471, 486 (1963). To determine whether Mr. Palacios’s consent was voluntary,

we examine the totality of the circumstances under which it was given. See United

States v. Washington, 957 F.2d 559, 562 (8 Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 883 th

(1992). 

We believe that the circumstances surrounding Mr. Palacios's consent raise no

inference that it was in any way coerced. To persuade us that his consent was not an

act of free will, Mr. Palacios refers us to Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500, 506

(1983) (plurality opinion), see also id. at 509 (opinion of Brennan, J.), which held that

a long detention by the police negates any inference that a consent was voluntary. That

case, however, is inapposite. 

In Royer, two plainclothes detectives believed that a suspect was carrying

narcotics in his duffel bag when he checked in for a flight. The agents confronted the

suspect and took his airline ticket and identification. They then asked him to follow

them into a small room away from the passenger concourse, where they interrogated

him and where he ultimately consented to the search of his bags. The Supreme Court

said that, for all practical purposes, Mr. Royer was under arrest. At the time that he

gave his consent, therefore, the Court concluded, “any consensual aspects of the

encounter had evaporated.” Id. at 503 (plurality opinion).
-4-

Here, the questioning and subsequent arrest of Mr. Palacios were captured on

video tape. After reviewing that tape (and the rest of the record), it is clear to us that

the district court did not err in holding that Mr. Palacios’s consent was an act of free

will. After asking to see his license and registration, and asking a number of additional

questions, Sgt. Thompson, as we have said, became suspicious of Mr. Palacios's

behavior and called for a canine unit. When the canine unit arrived, just nine minutes

after the initial stop, Sgt. Thompson asked Mr. Palacios four separate times if he and

Officer Lippold could search the vehicle and three times stopped to make sure that

Mr. Palacios understood what he was asking of him. Sgt. Thompson, of course, was

under no obligation to inform Mr. Palacios that he did not have to consent to a search,

see Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 231 (1973), and Sgt. Thompson did not

do so. But he did go beyond what was required in another respect, by explaining to

Mr. Palacios that he would be searching for narcotics and for weapons. 

Because Mr. Palacios consented knowingly and voluntarily to the search, the

district court was correct in refusing to suppress the evidence that the search turned up.

 

II.

Mr. Palacios also asks us to find error in the fact that the district court fixed his

sentence based on the amount of cocaine and amphetamine that the search of his car

revealed. Mr. Palacios argues that he should have been sentenced according to his

alleged belief that he was carrying only marijuana. The application of the federal

sentencing guidelines to the relevant facts is an issue of law, and we review it de

novo. See United States v. Lopez, 125 F.3d 597, 599 (8 Cir. 1997). th

Under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A), a district court determines relevant conduct

for sentencing based on “all acts or omissions committed ... by the defendant.”

Mr. Palacios is therefore “accountable at sentencing for the full quantity of all illegal

drugs” in his possession. United States v. Strange, 102 F.3d 356, 361 (8 Cir. 1996). th
-5-

Mr. Palacios maintains that it was not foreseeable to him that the person for whom he

was delivering drugs would have had him carry cocaine instead of marijuana, but

reasonable foreseeability is relevant in sentencing determinations only with respect to

the conduct of those with whom a defendant has conspired or jointly acted. See id. at

360; see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). Although Mr. Palacios pleaded guilty to a

drug conspiracy, his sentence was based on the drugs in his car at the time that he was

stopped and not on drugs in the possession of a co-conspirator. We therefore find no

error in the sentence that the district court imposed.

III.

For the reasons indicated, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.