United States v. Rendon, 032212 FED11, 11-10675
| Opinion Judge | BARKETT, Circuit Judge: |
| Party Name | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICARDO RENDON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Judge Panel | Before BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges, and HINKLE, District Judge. |
| Case Date | March 22, 2012 |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
DO NOT PUBLISH
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:09-cr-00048-WHA-TFM-1.
Ricardo Rendon appeals his conviction, entered upon a conditional guilty plea, for one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Specifically, he challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence that was seized during the warrantless search of his tractor-trailer by several state law enforcement officers after a drug detecting canine alerted to the presence of illegal drugs. Rendon argues that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him following the conclusion of his commercial vehicle inspection, and therefore, the officers' use of a drug detecting canine and non-consent, warrantless search of his tractor-trailer violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Alternatively, he argues that even if his continued detention was not unlawful, the district court erred in concluding that the use of the canine, which alerted officers to the cocaine in his tractor-trailer, was not tainted by officers' prior unlawful search of his tractor-trailer. We affirm.
I. Background
While driving his tractor-trailer on I-65 in Montgomery County, Alabama, Rendon was stopped by an Alabama state trooper, Henry Cox, for purposes of conducting a commercial vehicle inspection. Cox testified that generally he conducted two commercial truck inspections during his shift and that Rendon's was the second one of that particular day. As part of the inspection, Rendon provided Cox with his driver's license, vehicle registration, proof of liability insurance, and log book. He explained that he was transporting onions that had been loaded two days earlier, in Pharr, Texas. While Cox was preparing the inspection report, he asked Rendon several questions about the bill of lading for the load, the number of pallets in the load, its destination, his various stops in southern Texas, including those in Edinburgh, Pharr, and Ganada, and other questions pertaining to the load and his journey transporting it.
Cox then returned Rendon's driver's license and gave him a copy of the report indicating several violations. He then told Rendon that he was free to go, but said he had some additional questions and asked about the presence of illegal drugs in his tractor-trailer and sought Rendon's permission to search his trailer, which Rendon refused. Cox then told Rendon that although he had a right to say "no", if he refused, Cox would call in a drug sniffing canine and Rendon thereupon signed the search consent form.
Cox nonetheless called Officer Charles Anderson to bring his canine partner, Luca, to conduct the canine sniff. Prior to Luca's arrival, another state trooper, Chris Faulk, arrived at the scene. Cox and Faulk walked around the trailer inspecting it from the outside and then also entered the trailer. During the cursory search of the interior nothing was found, but, while observing the exterior of the trailer, the officers noticed new bolts on the refrigeration unit which protruded outside of the trailer. When Anderson arrived, he, too walked around the interior of the trailer and then led Luca around the outside of the trailer. When Luca reached the outside of the refrigeration unit, he alerted. Packages, which were eventually determined to be cocaine, were found in the refrigeration unit.
Rendon sought the suppression of the cocaine and other evidence seized during the officers' search on the basis that his continued detention by Cox was unlawful and that the officers lacked probable cause to conduct the search of the interior of his trailer. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion and Rendon eventually entered a conditional plea of guilty, preserving his right to appeal the evidentiary ruling.
II. Discussion
Rendon does not challenge the legality of Cox's initial stop to conduct the commercial vehicle inspection and agrees that he was lawfully detained by Cox for that purpose up until the time that Cox advised him that he was free to go and had returned Rendon's identification documents.1 However, when Cox proceeded to ask Rendon questions about the presence of illegal drugs in his trailer, both parties agree that Rendon was subject to an investigatory detention for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. What the parties dispute is: (1) whether Rendon's continuing detention by Cox from this point forward was lawful; (2) whether the entry and search of the trailer by Cox, Faulk and Anderson was unlawful and, if so, (3) whether the alert by Luca to the illegal drugs was tainted by the unlawful entry and search.
A. Reasonable Suspicion to Detain Rendon
"The Fourth Amendment prohibits 'unreasonable searches and seizures' by the Government, and its protections extend to...
To continue reading
Request your trial