Opinion ID: 4567072
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Presence of Coercive Police Procedures

Text: Soriano contends that Officer Rodriguez employed coercive police procedures when she suggested that Soriano was not being truthful, repeatedly asked whether he had any illegal substances, and deceived him by telling him that Officer Ramirez agreed that her questions were clear. The district court concluded that no coercive police procedures were utilized in obtaining Soriano’s consent to search his vehicle. Although Officer Rodriguez pointed out the inconsistencies in Soriano’s statements, the district court found that her statements and questions were not intended to trick him into consenting. The district court also noted that Soriano failed to point to case law indicating that confronting a defendant with inconsistent statements is a coercive police procedure. We agree. Officer Rodriguez’s statements—made during a valid traffic stop that was prolonged due to reasonable suspicion—were a means of investigating in order to confirm or dispel her suspicions. See United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 511 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). As to the issue of deceit, after Officer Rodriguez ran the criminal history and immigration checks in the patrol car and returned and confronted Soriano with the fact that he had lied about his most recent arrest, he acted confused about her questions. Officer Rodriguez told Soriano that she believed that her questions had been clear and that Officer Ramirez agreed that her questions were clear. In actuality, however, the extent of the interaction between Officers Rodriguez and Ramirez was limited to Rodriguez remarking “seems kind of weird” and Ramirez responding “yes.” In other words, Officer Ramirez never explicitly told Officer Rodriguez that he believed that her questions were clear. Soriano argues that Rodriguez used this misrepresentation of unanimity to pressure him and that doing so amplified the coercive nature of her accusations. 8 Case: 19-50832 Document: 00515571219 Page: 9 Date Filed: 09/18/2020 No. 19-50832 The district court determined that Officer Rodriguez’s statement to Soriano, despite being untruthful, was not the type of “trickery” this court has deemed a coercive tactic. Additionally, the district court observed that the statement was meant to ensure that Soriano understood Officer Rodriguez throughout the entire stop and to prompt him to answer truthfully—not to pressure him to consent to the search. We agree. The video footage of the encounter makes clear that although both officers were present, Officer Ramirez never directly questioned or was involved in questioning Soriano. See Perales, 886 F.3d at 548 (recognizing that presence of multiple officers can be a factor in determining coerciveness but finding that the presence of the second officer did not apply because he was not involved in the traffic stop). Moreover, Soriano does not challenge the district court’s finding that Officer Rodriguez’s statement was intended to ensure that Soriano understood her and to prompt his truthfulness but not to pressure him to consent to the search. Soriano has failed to show that the district court clearly erred in holding that this factor weighed in favor of a finding of voluntariness.