U.S. v. Alvarez, 95-4038

• Citation: 68 F.3d 1242
• Decision Date: 18 October 1995
• Docket Number: No. 95-4038,95-4038
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jaime ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)

Page 1242

68 F.3d 1242

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jaime ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 95-4038.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Oct. 18, 1995.

Bruce C. Lubeck, Assistant United States Attorney (Scott M. Matheson, Jr., United States Attorney with him on the briefs), Salt Lake City, Utah, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Robert L. Booker for Booker & Associates, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before ANDERSON and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and McKAY, Senior Circuit Judge.

BRORBY, Circuit Judge.

The United States brings this appeal seeking review of the district court's order granting the defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3731, and reverse.

BACKGROUND

On April 14, 1994, Utah Highway Patrolman Craig Gaines observed a U-Haul rental truck traveling northbound on interstate 15. As he began to overtake the truck, Officer Gaines noticed the license plate sticker had expired. Thereafter, Officer Gaines signaled to the driver of the vehicle to pull over.

Officer Gaines walked up to the driver's side of the U-Haul. ¹ The driver of the vehicle, defendant Jaime Alvarez, asked the officer if he needed the papers for the vehicle and provided the trooper with the U-Haul rental agreement and his driver's license. Mr. Alvarez's driver's license was issued by the state of Massachusetts, the rental agreement bore his name, and he indicated the truck had been rented in California and was to be taken to Boston, Massachusetts.

Officer Gaines testified Mr. Alvarez appeared nervous initially, but relaxed after his initial contact with the trooper. Officer Gaines informed Mr. Alvarez at this point that the reason he stopped the vehicle was due to the expired plates. Officer Gaines asked Mr. Alvarez to step out of the vehicle and led him to the back of the truck. The officer then asked where Mr. Alvarez was going and what cargo he was carrying. Mr. Alvarez responded that he and his companion were traveling to Boston and only moving their clothes. Officer Gaines asked who was the passenger in the vehicle, and Mr. Alvarez explained she was his girlfriend. At this point, the encounter had lasted approximately forty-five seconds.

When the expired plates were pointed out to Mr. Alvarez, he responded, "[t]hat's their fault." Officer Gaines replied that he was "exactly right." Officer Gaines then instructed Officer Gaines then returned to the back of the truck to question Mr. Alvarez again. He inquired whether Mr. Alvarez was carrying any weapons or anything in the truck, to which Mr. Alvarez responded negatively. Up to this point, the encounter had lasted less than two minutes from its inception. The officer then asked whether he could search the back of the truck, and Mr. Alvarez said "Go ahead." The search ultimately resulted in the seizure of cocaine forming the basis for the charges against Mr. Alvarez.

Mr. Alvarez to wait at the back of the vehicle while the trooper spoke with the passenger. Officer Gaines testified he questioned the passenger to check for inconsistencies with the information provided by Mr. Alvarez. It does not appear any such inconsistencies arose during Officer Gaines' thirty-second questioning of the passenger. Officer Gaines did testify, however, that while questioning the passenger, he detected the odor of air freshener.

The district court suppressed the evidence. The court concluded the initial questioning of Mr. Alvarez and the passenger was permissible, i.e., it was reasonably related to the purposes of the initial stop. The court concluded that from this point on, however, the officer's inquiries exceeded the scope of the inquiries justified by the initial stop: "Rather than follow up on the original suspicion that the vehicle was stolen ..., [Officer Gaines'] investigation began to focus on the contents of the vehicle." The district court determined the subsequent line of inquiry was valid only if it was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion that Mr. Alvarez was carrying contraband. The facts cited by the government: Mr. Alvarez's statement he was carrying only clothes in the truck; his initial nervousness; and the presence of air freshener, did not amount to a reasonable, articulable suspicion the defendant was carrying contraband. Consequently, the district court ruled Mr. Alvarez's subsequent consent to the officer's request to search the vehicle was tainted by the illegal detention preceding it and, therefore, the evidence was suppressed.

DISCUSSION

In reviewing motions to suppress, we accept the trial court's factual findings unless clearly erroneous and review de novo the ultimate determination of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Little, 18 F.3d 1499, 1503 (10th Cir.1994) (en banc).

A routine traffic stop constituting an investigative detention is constitutional only if supported by a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person seized is engaged in criminal activity. United States v. Lambert, 46 F.3d 1064, 1069 (10th Cir.1995). More specifically, the reasonableness of a stop must be evaluated by asking first, "whether the officer's action was justified at its inception," and second, "whether [the action] was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19-20, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1878-79, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).

Courts are to view the officer's conduct through a filter of "common sense and ordinary human experience," United States v. Melendez-Garcia, 28 F.3d 1046, 1052 (10th Cir.1994) (citation omitted), and in light of "the totality of the circumstances," United States v. Fernandez, 18 F.3d 874, 878 (10th Cir.1994). This approach is intended to "avoid unrealistic second-guessing of police officers' decisions," Melendez-Garcia, 28 F.3d at 1052 (citation omitted), and to accord appropriate deference to the ability of a trained law enforcement officer to distinguish between innocent and suspicious actions, United States v. Lopez-Martinez, 25 F.3d 1481, 1484 (10th Cir.1994).

The parties do not dispute that Officer Gaines' initial stop of the vehicle Mr. Alvarez was driving was justified due to the expired license plates on the U-Haul, nor do they dispute that the expired plates supported a reasonable suspicion the vehicle was stolen. Thus, we focus our inquiry on whether the officer's actions subsequent to the stop were justified by the officer's reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity. See United States v. Dewitt, 946 F.2d 1497, 1502 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1118, 112 S.Ct. 1233, 117 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992); United States v. Guzman, 864 F.2d 1512, 1519 (10th Cir.1988) (citing Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 498- 99, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1324-25, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983)).

We agree with the district court's conclusion...