Source: https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-alvarez-210
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 00:42:47+00:00

Document:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Jose Miguel ALVAREZ, Defendants.
Fresno Forfeiture Unit, Vincenza Rabenn, United States Attorney's Office, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff.
On March 21, 2016, defendant filed a motion to suppress all evidence seized as a result of a traffic stop and subsequent search, both of which he contends were unlawful. (Doc. No. 20.) The government opposed the motion on April 4, 2016. (Doc. No. 21.) A reply was filed on May 30, 2016. (Doc. No. 24.) The motion was then taken under submission. For the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion to suppress will be denied.
Defendant Alvarez was indicted on December 10, 2015 on one count of possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), following his arrest on November 22, 2015. (Doc. No. 7.) The charge brought against defendant Alvarez stemmed from the stop and subsequent search of a vehicle he was driving by a California Highway Patrol (CHP) Officer Lloyd Pratt. Pursuant to the challenged search approximately eight pounds of methamphetamine were discovered in the trunk of the vehicle.
The defense moved for an evidentiary hearing in connection with the pending motion to suppress evidence and that request was granted. An evidentiary hearing was conducted on July 7, 2016, at which Officer Pratt and Federal Public Defender Investigator Shawn McElroy testified. (Doc. No. 28.) CHP Officer Pratt testified as follows.
Q. What first drew your attention to the Chevy Malibu?
A. What first drew my attention was the taillights. I—I'm the type of officer that—or now sergeant, I guess, I enjoy my job. And I actually passed up my offramp to go look at this vehicle. Because I saw the taillights.
Q. What was distinctive about the taillights that made you want to investigate further?
A. Nothing. There was—I enjoy my job. I enjoy making stops. And I—there was a set of taillights in front of me and I kept going past my offramp that I actually live at to look at the vehicle.
The Fourth Amendment states, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." U.S. Const. amend. IV. Traffic stops, "even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose," are "seizures" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and therefore are "subject to the constitutional imperative that [they] not be ‘unreasonable’ under the circumstances." Whren v. United States , 517 U.S. 806, 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996) ; see also United States v. Arvizu , 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002). "A police-initiated traffic stop is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if the police stop the vehicle because of a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the vehicle's occupants have broken a law." United States v. Hartz , 458 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2006) ; see also United States v. Lopez–Soto , 205 F.3d 1101, 1105 (9th Cir. 2000). An officer making a traffic stop "must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity," in light of the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Cortez , 449 U.S. 411, 417–18, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981) ; see also Navarette v. California , ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1683, 1687, 188 L.Ed.2d 680 (2014) ; United States v. Valdes–Vega , 738 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). The reasonable suspicion standard is intentionally abstract, and courts are to give "due weight" to the factual inferences drawn by law enforcement officers. Arvizu , 534 U.S. at 273–77, 122 S.Ct. 744 ; see also United States v. Hartz , 458 F.3d at 1017 ("Reasonable suspicion exists if ‘specific, articulable facts ... together with objective and reasonable inferences' suggest that the persons detained by the police are engaged in criminal activity.") (quoting Lopez–Soto , 205 F.3d at 1105.).
Defendant Alvarez advances three main arguments in support of his motion to suppress the evidence seized from the vehicle he was driving: (1) Officer Pratt lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop; (2) Officer Pratt unreasonably prolonged the stop; and (3) Officer Pratt conducted a warrantless search of the vehicle. (Doc. No. 20.) Below, the court addresses each of these arguments in turn.
observed the car drift onto the solid white fog line on the far side of the right lane and watched the car's wheels travel along the fog line for approximately ten seconds. The Honda then drifted to the left side of the right lane, signaled a lane change, and moved into the left lane. [The officer] next observed the car drift to the left side of the left lane where its left wheels traveled along the solid yellow line for approximately ten seconds. The car then returned to the center of the left lane, signaled a lane change, and moved into the right lane. [The officer] pulled the car over for possible violations of California Vehicle Code § 21658(a) (lane straddling) and California Vehicle Code § 23152(a) (driving under the influence).
[The Officer] testified that he observed[the] vehicle for 35–45 seconds before pulling it over, and that during this time, Estrada—Nava drove within the speed limit and properly activated his turn signals before making lane changes. [The officer] thought Estrada—Nava was "possibly" driving under the influence because the car's wheels touched the fog line on the right side of the right lane for 10 seconds and then, about 5–10 seconds later, touched the yellow line on the far left of the left lane for another 10 seconds.
Id. at 445. Comparing these observations with those considered by California courts as well as the courts of other states in assessing reasonable suspicion for driving under the influence, the court in Colin concluded that in the case before it, reasonable suspicion was lacking because the officer did not observe "pronounced weaving" by the vehicle within a lane nor such in-lane weaving over a substantial distance (since it was only 35–45 seconds in length) and that merely touching the right fog line and the yellow center line for 10 seconds after legitimate and lawful lane changes did not establish otherwise. Id. at 445–46. Before concluding that reasonable suspicion was lacking, the court also noted it was curious that upon stopping the vehicle the officer did not ask the driver if he'd been drinking or administer a field sobriety test. Id. at 446. See also United States v. Bell , Case. No. 13–cr–0287–JST–1, 2014 WL 491272, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2014) ("In 2002, the Ninth Circuit held that under California law, police officers cannot pull over a driver for swerving unless it is both pronounced and continues over a ‘substantial distance.’ ... The evidence in this case provides even less justification for a traffic stop than the facts in Colin . Here, the Fiat remained on the white line for at most two seconds before swerving back into its lane. Its tires may also have briefly crossed over the lane line. This is neither the "pronounced weaving" nor the weaving for a "substantial distance" required to initiate a traffic stop.") (citing Colin , 314 F.3d at 446 ).
As will be discussed below, other than the observation of defendant Alvarez's vehicle actually crossing the right lane line by approximately ten inches onto the rumble strip, these facts are remarkably similar to those presented in this case.
its failure to maintain a single travel lane, in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484.305.
What the workers had observed was a turn signal blinking without the car changing lanes, the car straddling two lanes for a time, crossing the yellow line that ran along the median at one point, drifting across the fog line onto the shoulder and then moving back to the center with its wheels touching the middle line again. 324 F.3d at 1115–16.
Citation to this unpublished Ninth Circuit opinion is appropriate pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 36–3(b).
California courts have, arguably, been even more consistent in concluding that an officer's observations of weaving, even within the boundaries of a lane, and/or otherwise erratic driving constitute reasonable suspicion warranting a traffic stop. See People v. Wells , 38 Cal.4th 1078, 1083–84, 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 8, 136 P.3d 810 (2006) (anonymous tip of a possibly intoxicated driver "weaving all of the roadway" established reasonable suspicion justifying stop); Arburn v. Department of Motor Vehicles , 151 Cal.App.4th 1480, 1484–85, 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 15 (2007) ("More than one California court has found that "weaving" within a lane provides sufficient cause to conduct an investigatory stop.... Weaving within a lane is a widely recognized characteristic of an intoxicated driver and recognizing a weaving driver is undoubtedly within the province of even the most junior officer."); People v. Russell , 81 Cal.App.4th 96, 99–105, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 568 (2000) (a vehicle "repeatedly drift[ing] around within its lane and sometimes out of its lane" over three miles justified the vehicle stop); People v. Bracken , 83 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 4, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 481 (2000) (officer with over five years of experience and who had been qualified as an expert in cases involving driving under the influence had reasonable suspicion supporting a stop where he observed a vehicle weaving within its own lane for approximately one half of a mile).
As noted above, the most significant difference between the facts of this case and those confronted by the court in Colin , is that here the officer observed the vehicle cross over the right lane line by ten inches onto the bumper strip whereas in Colin the vehicle was observed driving on the lane lines, both left and right, without crossing outside those lines. In addition, here Officer Pratt testified that he pulled the vehicle over because by crossing the lane line onto the shoulder it appeared the driver was having difficulty negotiating a turn which, in his significant DUI arrest experience, was particularly indicative of driving under the influence. The question is, are these differences in the facts legally significant and do they provide a basis from distinguishing this case from that presented in Colin ? The court views that as a very close question, but concludes that the facts of this case are distinguishable from those in Colin. Based upon the other Ninth Circuit and California cases discussed above, the court finds that based upon Officer Pratt's observations there was a reasonable suspicion that defendant was driving while intoxicated thereby justifying the vehicle stop.
The court pauses to note the circumstances that play little or no role in its determination. Officer Pratt identified several additional elements adding to his suspicion: that it was 11:57 p.m., that the vehicle was traveling 60 mph in a 65 mph maximum speed zone, and that there had been a fatal crash DUI crash two months earlier on the same stretch of highway. (Doc. No. 32 at 56–59.) As to the time of night, the court notes that the incident in Colin took place at 2:05 a.m. and thus this fact plays no role in distinguishing the holding in Colin. As to the driving at 60 mph in a 65 mph maximum speed zone, one would be hard pressed to conclude that reasonable suspicion of criminal activity stems from a driver obeying the law in this fashion and Officer Pratt essentially conceded as much. (Doc. No. 32 at 34, 57.) Moreover, that a fatal DUI crash two months prior on a highway as heavily trafficked as Highway 99 provides essentially no support for a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. However, it is also the case that the officer's failure to ask the defendant if he'd been drinking or to administer field sobriety tests does not invalidate the officer's initial reasons for stopping the vehicle. It was clear from his evidentiary hearing testimony that Officer Pratt was looking for a reason to pull defendant's vehicle over. (Id. at 53.) However, the Supreme Court has held that the constitutional reasonableness of a traffic stop does not depend on the actual motivation of the officer involved. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996) (and cases cited therein); see also Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 153, 125 S.Ct. 588, 160 L.Ed.2d 537 (2004) (noting an officer's "subjective reason for making the arrest need not be the criminal offense as to which the known facts provide probable cause"); United States v. Magallon–Lopez, 817 F.3d 671, 675 (9th Cir. 2016) ("If ... the facts provide probable cause or reasonable suspicion to justify a traffic stop, the stop is lawful even if the officer made the stop only because he wished to investigate a more serious offense."); cf. United States v. Magallon–Lopez, 817 F.3d at 677–78 (Berzon, CJ, concurring). Thus, it is of no import that Officer Pratt's actual motivation for stopping defendant's vehicle may be subject to question.
As the Supreme Court has recently explained, the acceptable duration of a police detention in the context of a traffic stop is determined by the seizure's "mission," i.e. the reason the traffic stop was permissible under the Constitution in the first place. Rodriguez v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 1614, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015). If the reason for a stop is to address a traffic infraction, the stop may "last no longer than is necessary to effectuate th[at] purpose." Id. (quoting Florida v. Royer , 460 U.S. 491, 500, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) ). "Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed." Id. (citing United States v. Sharpe , 470 U.S. 675, 686, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985) ). An officer may, however, extend a traffic stop if the extension itself is independently supported by reasonable suspicion. United States v. Evans , 786 F.3d 779, 788 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Mendez , 476 F.3d 1077, 1080 (9th Cir. 2007) ). Thus, the extension of a traffic stop requires the officer to be "aware of specific, articulable facts which, when considered with objective and reasonable inferences, form a basis for particularized suspicion." Id. (quoting United States v. Montero–Camargo , 208 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)).
Here, Officer Pratt had independent reasonable suspicion for prolonging the traffic stop. He noted that the fact that the car was registered to one person and insured to another, neither of whom were the defendant, was a prominent indicator of narcotics trafficking. (Doc. No. 32 at 14–15.) Further, the defendant did not know who owned the vehicle, which the officer found to be "very significant." (Id. at 15.) Also significant to the officer was the fact that only a single key was in the ignition. (Id. at 14.) Officer Pratt testified that these observations, combined with his extensive training and experience in narcotics interdiction, led him to believe the defendant "may be transporting narcotics." (Id. at 15–16.) Officer Pratt's identification of these indicia of narcotics trafficking occurred "within 20, 30 seconds" of his initiating contact with the defendant, at which time the officer's focus shifted to "a narcotics stop." (Id. at 18–19.) After he removed the defendant Alvarez from the car and continued talking with him, defendant Alvarez stated that he also did not know who had brought the vehicle to him. (Id. at 20.) Though he advised Officer Pratt that the vehicle had been dropped off to him at his uncle's request, defendant Alvarez was unsure of his uncle's name. (Id. ) These facts were sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion of narcotics trafficking, which justified prolonging the stop for further investigation. Evans , 786 F.3d at 788 ; see also United States v. Browne , CR 16–27–M–DLC, 219 F.Supp.3d 1030, 1038–39, 2016 WL 6602636, at *7 (D. Mont. Nov. 8, 2016) (concluding that there was a reasonable suspicion of drug smuggling, justifying prolonging of a traffic stop to allow for a canine sniff of the vehicle to confirm or dispel that reasonable suspicion and that prolongation of the stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment under these circumstances).
Although Officer Pratt found defendant's possession of a cell phone and a few convenience store items to be of some slight significance in concluding that he might be transporting narcotics (Doc. No. 32 at 14–15), the court has afforded no weight to these facts in assessing whether a reasonable suspicion existed. While the court is aware that there may be "circumstances in which wholly lawful conduct might justify the suspicion that criminal activity was afoot," United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 9, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (quoting Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 441, 100 S.Ct. 2752, 65 L.Ed.2d 890 (1980) ), the possession of a cell phone and a few convenience store items simply does not weigh for or against Officer Pratt's reasonable suspicion of narcotics trafficking, in that they are innocuous items of exceeding commonality.
It is generally presumed a warrantless search is unreasonable, and therefore violates the Fourth Amendment, unless it falls within a specific exception to the warrant requirement. Riley v. California , ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2482, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014) (citing Kentucky v. King , 563 U.S. 452, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 179 L.Ed.2d 865 (2011) ). "Warrantless searches by law enforcement officers ‘are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.’ " United States v. Cervantes , 703 F.3d 1135, 1138–39 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) ). "It is equally well settled that one of the specifically established exceptions to the requirements of both a warrant and probable cause is a search that is conducted pursuant to consent." Schneckloth v. Bustamonte , 412 U.S. 218, 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). The consent exception requires the individual to give "voluntary and intelligent consent to a warrantless search of his person, property, or premises." United States v. Cormier , 220 F.3d 1103, 1112 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Torres–Sanchez , 83 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 1996) ). Consent to a search may be withdrawn or limited at any time. United States v. McWeeney , 454 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir. 2006). "In order to establish the validity of a consent to search, the government bears the heavy burden of demonstrating that the consent was freely and voluntarily given." United States v. Chan–Jimenez , 125 F.3d 1324, 1327 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Schneckloth , 412 U.S. at 222, 93 S.Ct. 2041 ); see also United States v. Russell , 664 F.3d 1279, 1281 (9th Cir. 2012).
Here, defendant Alvarez argues his consent to the search of the vehicle he was driving was not freely and voluntarily given for two reasons. First, he was told by Officer Pratt that if he refused to consent, the officer would prolong the stop to await the arrival of a canine unit to the scene. (Doc. No. 24 at 9.) Second, he contends that his consent was not voluntary because the officer induced him to believe he had no right to withdraw his consent, once it was given. (Id. ) The court finds neither argument persuasive.
First, it is true that if Officer Pratt represented to defendant Alvarez that he had the legal authority to perform the proposed search regardless of his consent in order to induce the giving of consent to search by the defendant, the consent would be invalid. See Bumper v. North Carolina , 391 U.S. 543, 550, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968) ("When a law enforcement officer claims authority to search a home under a warrant, he announces in effect that the occupant has no right to resist the search."); see also Schneckloth , 412 U.S. at 225, 93 S.Ct. 2041 ; United States v. Bautista , 362 F.3d 584, 589, 591–92 (9th Cir. 2004) ("Notably, however, ‘the government's burden to show voluntariness cannot be discharged by showing no more than acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority.’ "); Orhorhaghe v. I.N.S. , 38 F.3d 488, 500–01 (9th Cir. 1994) ("It is well established that there can be no effective consent to a search or seizure if that consent follows a law enforcement officer's assertion of an independent right to engage in such conduct."). Here, however, the evidence establishes that CHP Officer Pratt did not suggest in any way that he had the legal authority to search the car, particularly the trunk. Rather, the officer told defendant Alvarez merely that he would prolong the vehicle stop for long enough to allow for a dog sniff of the car to take place. (Doc. No. 32 at 24.) The court has already concluded above that, based on the indicia of narcotics trafficking noted by Officer Pratt, there was a reasonable suspicion justifying the prolonging of the stop in order to subject the car to a dog sniff. See Evans , 786 F.3d at 788.
Under this analysis, the district court must determine whether the officers' conduct is objectively recognizable as intimidation directed mostly (or exclusively) at coercing [the defendant] into believing that [he] had no right to withdraw or delimit [his] consent once it was given, and whether a reasonable person faced with the officers' conduct would have believed that no such right existed.
McWeeney , 454 F.3d at 1037.
Here, the evidence before the court establishes that after receiving consent from defendant Alvarez to search the car, Officer Pratt told the defendant that he was very good at narcotics interdiction, that he knew there were drugs in the car, that he was going to find the drugs, and that he would only give Alvarez one chance to tell the truth and then "all bets are off." (Doc. No. 32 at 25, 47.) When the defendant was then asked if there were drugs in the car, he advised there was a bag in the trunk. (Id. at 25.) Nothing about this exchange indicates coercion which would have reasonably lead defendant Alvarez to believe he did not have the right to withdraw his consent to search. While the tactics used by the officer were a form of psychological pressure to convince the defendant that declining to tell the officer of the presence and location of drugs in the car would ultimately be fruitless, the officer's statements were not directed in any way to creating a setting in which defendant Alvarez would reasonably believe he had no authority to limit or withdraw his consent to the search. Therefore, the consent was valid.
For all of the reasons stated above, defendant's motion to suppress evidence (Doc. No. 20) is denied.

References: v. 
 § 841
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 21658
 § 23152
 v. 
 § 484
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.