Opinion ID: 171750
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Search of the Vehicle

Text: Once an officer has completed a traffic stop, he must allow the driver to continue on his way without further questioning so long as the driver has provided a valid license and proof of his right to operate the vehicle. Zabalza, 346 F.3d at 1259. “However, this general rule is subject to a significant exception permitting an officer to engage in further questioning unrelated to the initial stop if he has probable cause, the consent of the suspect, or, at a minimum, a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.” Ozbirn, 189 F.3d at 1199. -7- The issue of voluntary consent at the conclusion of a traffic stop requires a “fact-laden inquiry depending heavily on the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given the evidence, together with the inferences, deductions and conclusions to be drawn from the evidence.” Cardenas-Alatorre, 485 F.3d at 1118 (quotation marks omitted). Here, Mr. Pulido-Vasquez and Mr. Medina both expressed consent for Trooper Epperly to search the vehicle. Mr. Pulido-Vasquez, however, asserts that a language barrier nullifies any consent given to search the vehicle. A “working knowledge” of the English language is all that is required for an encounter to be consensual. United States v. Zubia-Melendez, 263 F.3d 1155, 1163 (10th Cir. 2001). The requisite “working knowledge” exists if the individual has “sufficient familiarity with the English language to understand and respond” to the officer’s questions. Id. At the suppression hearing, Trooper Epperly testified that, based on his experience, he believed that neither man was having fundamental difficulties comprehending him because they made appropriate responses to his questions and did not say they didn’t understand. The district court found this testimony credible. After our review of the record, including the videotape of the stop of the vehicle, we find no clear error in the district court’s factual determination that Mr. Pulido-Vasquez had sufficient familiarity with the English language to consent to the search. -8- Likewise, we see no merit to the argument that Mr. Pulido-Vasquez’s consent was coerced. Nothing in the record demonstrates that Mr. Pulido-Vasquez had an objectively reasonable belief that he was not free to leave or disregard Trooper Epperly’s search request. Among other indicia of voluntary consent, Mr. Pulido-Vasquez confidently responded, “No problem” when Trooper Epperly asked him for permission to search the vehicle. R., Vol. II, at 24. See, e.g., United States v. Espinosa, 782 F.2d 888, 892 (10th Cir. 1986) (finding voluntary consent where vehicle occupant said “No problem” to the request to search and watched the search without objection). We see no reason to overturn the district court’s conclusion that the “subsequent search of the car [was] part and parcel of a consensual encounter.” Cardenas-Alatorre, 485 F.3d at 1120. Standing alone, Mr. Pulido-Vasquez’s consent is sufficient for us to determine that the search was legal. See id. at 1118 (“If, at the conclusion of a traffic stop a driver voluntarily consents to further questioning, no seizure takes place and ‘the Fourth Amendment’s strictures are not implicated.’”). There is, however, an alternative basis for that conclusion—a reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity. “A variety of factors may contribute to the formation of an objectively reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. Among those factors . . . are having no proof of ownership of the vehicle, having no proof of authority to -9- operate the vehicle, and inconsistent statements about destination.” United States v. Hunnicutt, 135 F.3d 1345, 1349 (10th Cir. 1998). Notwithstanding any misunderstanding and ambiguity attributable to language difficulties, Trooper Epperly was presented with two individuals with different stories—one claiming that he dropped off Mr. Pulido-Vasquez’s mother with his sister at her apartment and the other claiming that Mr. Pulido-Vasquez’s mother was left with his uncle at his house. Other circumstances apparent to Trooper Epperly included the lack of luggage (even though the men claimed to be taking an overnight trip), the absence of information on permission to drive the Explorer, Mr. Medina’s failure to state Mr. Pulido-Vasquez’s full name, and a key ring with only one key on it (which the officer believed could be indicative of a vehicle used to transport drugs). Taken together, these factors could raise an experienced officer’s reasonable suspicion that the men were involved in criminal activity. -10-