State v. Galindo
| Decision Date | 22 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 49123 |
| Citation | 522 P.3d 1284 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Sergio Roel GALINDO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Kiley A. Heffner argued.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Kenneth K. Jorgensen argued.
Sergio Roel Galindo appeals from the judgment of conviction entered on his conditional guilty plea to trafficking in methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732B(a)(4). Galindo challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop. We affirm.
Following an evidentiary hearing on Galindo's suppression motion, the district court made the following factual findings: While patrolling in Twin Falls County, Officer Mandzic observed Galindo commit a traffic violation and initiated a lawful traffic stop. When Officer Mandzic approached the vehicle, Galindo almost immediately complained he was ill, experiencing a headache, body aches, and shaking. Officer Mandzic inquired whether Galindo wanted an ambulance, and he said that he did. While Officer Mandzic was speaking with Galindo, other officers arrived on the scene, and one called for an ambulance.
After Officer Mandzic collected Galindo's driving information, Officer Mandzic returned to his patrol vehicle and began the process of issuing a traffic citation to Galindo. As Officer Mandzic was processing the citation, the paramedics arrived and began treating Galindo inside the ambulance. When Officer Mandzic completed the citation, the paramedics were still treating Galindo inside the ambulance. Because Galindo was still receiving medical treatment, Officer Mandzic did not immediately serve the citation on Galindo. Instead, Officer Mandzic remained in his patrol vehicle and began to write his narrative of the traffic stop.
While Officer Mandzic was in his patrol vehicle and Galindo was receiving medical attention, Officer Christensen looked into the ambulance and asked Galindo if he could search the vehicle stating, "Hey Sergio, do you mind if I search your car real quick to make sure there is nothing in it?" Galindo responded, 1
When Officer Mandzic exited his patrol vehicle with the completed citation, Galindo was still in the ambulance. After the paramedics had completed their examination of Galindo and he had exited the ambulance, Officer Mandzic began explaining the citation to Galindo and the steps necessary to resolve it. While Officer Mandzic was explaining the citation to Galindo, Officer Christensen found a digital scale in the vehicle with visible methamphetamine residue.
Shortly after Officer Christensen found the scale and methamphetamine residue, Officer Mandzic finished explaining the traffic citation to Galindo and answering his questions. As Galindo reached for the citation, Officer Mandzic did not give it to him but instead asked him to wait until Officer Christensen finished searching the vehicle. Roughly six seconds after asking Galindo to wait, Officer Christensen found more methamphetamine in the pocket of a coat in the vehicle. As a result, Galindo was arrested.
After this encounter, the State charged Galindo with trafficking in methamphetamine, and he filed a suppression motion. Galindo argued that the officers unlawfully extended the stop, rendering his consent to the vehicle's search invalid.2 At the evidentiary hearing, Officer Mandzic, Officer Christensen, and Galindo testified. The district court also admitted into evidence the traffic citation and the videos from the officers’ body cameras. Following the suppression hearing, the court denied the motion, ruling Officer Mandzic did not impermissibly extend the length of the traffic stop. The court reasoned:
After completing the ticket, Officer Mandzic remained in his vehicle for several more minutes writing his incident notes. The entire time that Officer Mandzic was in his vehicle following the printing of the ticket, [Galindo] was in the ambulance and under the care of paramedics. Indeed, when Officer Mandzic exited his vehicle [Galindo] was still receiving medical attention. Officer Mandzic made the decision not to disrupt [Galindo's] medical care in an attempt to explain the ticket, describe how to pay for or resolve the ticket, and to answer any questions that [Galindo] might have. Importantly, [Galindo] had complained of a headache and shaking only several minutes prior. Officer Mandzic's decision not to interrupt the medical examination of [Galindo] to explain the traffic citation was entirely reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.
Galindo subsequently pled guilty conditionally to trafficking in methamphetamine and reserved his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. Galindo timely appeals.
The standard of review of a suppression motion is bifurcated. When a decision on a motion to suppress is challenged, we accept the trial court's findings of fact that are supported by substantial evidence, but we freely review the application of constitutional principles to the facts as found. State v. Atkinson , 128 Idaho 559, 561, 916 P.2d 1284, 1286 (Ct. App. 1996). At a suppression hearing, the power to assess the credibility of witnesses, resolve factual conflicts, weigh evidence, and draw factual inferences is vested in the trial court. State v. Valdez-Molina , 127 Idaho 102, 106, 897 P.2d 993, 997 (1995) ; State v. Schevers , 132 Idaho 786, 789, 979 P.2d 659, 662 (Ct. App. 1999).
Galindo argues the district court erred in denying his suppression motion because "Officer Mandzic unlawfully extended the traffic stop after completing the traffic stop's purpose," thereby rendering Galindo's subsequent consent to the vehicle's search invalid. A traffic stop by an officer constitutes a seizure of the vehicle's occupants and implicates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Delaware v. Prouse , 440 U.S. 648, 653, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979) ; State v. Atkinson , 128 Idaho 559, 561, 916 P.2d 1284, 1286 (Ct. App. 1996). Under the Fourth Amendment, an officer may stop a vehicle to investigate possible criminal behavior if there is a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the vehicle is being driven contrary to traffic laws. United States v. Cortez , 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981) ; State v. Flowers , 131 Idaho 205, 208, 953 P.2d 645, 648 (Ct. App. 1998).
Authority for a traffic-related seizure ends when the tasks related to the infraction are, or reasonably should have been, completed. Rodriguez v. United States , 575 U.S. 348, 354, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015) ; State v. Linze , 161 Idaho 605, 609, 389 P.3d 150, 154 (2016). Consequently, a traffic-related seizure violates the Fourth Amendment if prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the "mission" of issuing a ticket. Rodriguez , 575 U.S. at 350-51, 135 S.Ct. 1609 ; State v. Karst , 170 Idaho 219, 223, 509 P.3d 1148, 1152 (2022). In other words, "a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution's shield against unreasonable seizures." Rodriguez , 575 U.S. at 350, 135 S.Ct. 1609 ; see Karst , 170 Idaho at 224, 509 P.3d at 1153 ; Linze , 161 Idaho at 608, 389 P.3d at 153.
Galindo asserts the United States Supreme Court's decision in Rodriguez and the Idaho Supreme Court's interpretation of that case in Linze () control the analysis of whether Officer Mandzic unlawfully extended the traffic stop. Relying on these cases, Galindo asserts that the traffic stop's purpose was to prepare a traffic citation and that Officer Mandzic "achieved" that purpose when he "printed out" the completed citation. Based on these assertions, Galindo argues Officer Mandzic unlawfully extended the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion when he retained Galindo's identification and the printed citation. According to Galindo, his continued detention after Officer Mandzic printed the citation is a new seizure under the Fourth Amendment without reasonable suspicion, which rendered Galindo's consent to the vehicle's search invalid. To avoid this alleged unlawful detention, Galindo contends "Officer Mandzic should have interrupted [Galindo's] medical examination to return his identification and the completed traffic citation."
In response, the State does not dispute that Rodriguez guides the analysis of whether Officer Mandzic unlawfully extended the traffic stop. Rather, it argues "Officer Mandzic's authority for the seizure did not end before Galindo granted consent to search because the tasks related to the traffic stop were not in fact, nor reasonably should have been completed by then." In support, the State cites Rodriguez for the proposition that whether Officer Mandzic unlawfully extended the stop turns on "when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are--or reasonably should have been --completed." The State argues the tasks necessary to complete a traffic infraction include "service of the citation, return of Galindo's documentation, and explanation of how to address the citation." Further, it argues that "the issue turns on the constitutional reasonableness of waiting until after medical treatment and evaluation was [sic] complete before serving the citation" and that "the stop was not improperly extended merely because service of the citation was delayed by events beyond [Officer Mandzic's] control, namely Galindo's medical needs."
As an initial matter, we address the parties’ dispute about when the traffic stop's purpose is complete--when Officer Mandzic printed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial