Court Opinion

ID: 9495810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:10:49.514138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:12.570823
License: Public Domain

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
I agree that it is possible that the investigating officers in this case would have arrested Mr. Alvarez-Gonzalez because it appeared that he did not have a valid driving license, but the government’s proof falls short on the pivotal question of whether it was reasonably likely that the officers would in fact have arrested him for that reason. At the suppression hearing, the officers were never asked whether they would have arrested Mr. Alvarez-Gonzalez for not having a valid license, nor was there any evidence adduced that arrests are customarily made in South Dakota in such circumstances. The result in United States v. Glenn, 152 F.3d 1047 (8th Cir.1998), on which the court relies, was *1073greatly aided by the existence of an applicable rule that required an officer to make an arrest if an arrest was “ ‘necessary to prevent ... further criminal conduct,’ ” id. at 1050 (quoting Minn. R.Crim. P. 6.01(l)(a)). The state points to no such rule or statute in the instant case. It is at least suggestive, moreover, that the reasons adduced for Mr. Alvarez-Gonzalez’s arrest did not include the fact that he did not have a valid license.
For these reasons, I believe that the district court clearly erred in concluding that the discovery of Mr. Alvarez-Gonzalez’s status was inevitable, and I would therefore reverse the judgment of the district court.