United States v. Collazo

• Decision Date: 29 March 2016
• Docket Number: No. 15–5806.,15–5806.
• Citation: 818 F.3d 247
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Juan COLLAZO, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

818 F.3d 247

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Juan COLLAZO, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 15–5806.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: March 8, 2016.
Decided and Filed: March 29, 2016.

818 F.3d 249

ARGUED:David I. Komisar, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant. Van S. Vincent, United States Attorney's Office, Nashville,

818 F.3d 250

Tennessee, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:David I. Komisar, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant. Van S. Vincent, United States Attorney's Office, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.

Before: CLAY, GILMAN, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge.

This case involves a traffic stop on Interstate 40 that morphed into a warrantless search of the vehicle, which in turn uncovered a cache of cocaine. The vehicle in question was being driven by Juan Collazo, with his wife Cinthia as a passenger. At issue is the validity of both the traffic stop and the subsequent search.

Collazo was indicted on one count of conspiracy to possess five kilograms or more of cocaine with the intent to distribute the drug. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denied Collazo's motion to suppress the evidence seized by the police. This caused Collazo to enter into a conditional plea of guilty that preserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress.

Collazo now appeals, arguing that the evidence obtained from his van should have been suppressed because (1) there was no probable cause for the traffic stop, (2) the traffic stop was unconstitutionally prolonged, and (3) the search of the van violated his Fourth Amendment rights. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual background

The traffic stop was largely recorded on the dashboard camera of the officer making the stop, but the audio function on the camera was broken. Recording began approximately 30 seconds prior to the initiation of the patrol car's lights. The video ends approximately 70 minutes after the initiation of the traffic stop because the camera ran out of memory.

1. Hill's decision to conduct a traffic stop of Collazo's van

On October 9, 2013, West Tennessee Drug Task Force Special Agents Preston Hill and David Montgomery were patrolling Interstate 40 in Haywood County, Tennessee in separate cars. Collazo was driving his van on that same stretch of Interstate 40 with his wife Cinthia accompanying him in the front passenger seat. Hill decided to conduct a traffic stop after concluding that Collazo's van was following too closely behind the tractor-trailer ahead of it.

Although Hill did not know the exact speed of the van because the speed function on his camera was not working, he estimated that the van was travelling close to the interstate speed limit of 70 miles per hour. Collazo disputes this estimate and contends that he was travelling at only 55 miles per hour. Referencing the recording, Hill testified that Collazo's van was less than four car lengths behind the tractor-trailer shortly before he decided to pull the van over. Hill did not know the exact distance between the two vehicles, but he "eyeballed" the gap in question. He further testified that the van started to decrease speed roughly 20 seconds before he activated his lights, but it was still traveling at an unsafe distance behind the tractor-trailer. At that time, there were four broken white lines visible on the interstate between the tractor-trailer and Collazo's van. Hill admitted that he did not know how much distance the broken white lines represented, but he testified that, according

818 F.3d 251

to the video, the van was travelling with only a three-second following distance just before he activated his lights.

According to Hill, a vehicle is following too closely if the distance between the two vehicles in question is less than one car length for every ten miles per hour of velocity. In other words, if a car were travelling 70 miles per hour, that vehicle would be violating the law if there were less than seven car lengths between it and the car in front. Hill testified that he would not have stopped Collazo if the van had been travelling seven or more car lengths behind the tractor-trailer.

2. The traffic stop

After Collazo pulled over onto the shoulder, Hill approached the passenger side of the van and asked Collazo for his license, registration, and proof of insurance. While standing on the passenger side of the van, Hill observed a jar of what appeared to be urine between the driver and passenger seats. Hill testified that this represented "hard travel ... where you don't want to stop," which is not common for passenger vehicles. He also witnessed Cinthia behaving erratically—moving a lot and being "very animated in her speaking."

Approximately two minutes later, Hill asked Collazo to exit the van and stand next to Hill's patrol car because he was having trouble hearing Collazo due to traffic noise. After Collazo complied, Hill explained to Collazo that he was being stopped for following too closely. Hill told Collazo that he was going to check Collazo's license and retrieve a citation book. He also asked Collazo a follow-up question about his address.

Roughly four minutes after the stop began, while Hill was working on the warning citation, he asked Collazo about his travel destination. Collazo replied that he was travelling from Dallas to a hospital in Nashville to visit his father-in-law, who had just had a stroke, but that he did not know which hospital. Hill and Collazo then engaged in a general conversation about Collazo's van for a couple minutes.

Approximately six minutes into the stop, Hill asked for permission to speak with Cinthia. According to Hill, Collazo granted his permission, although Collazo disputes this. Hill then returned to the passenger side of the van and asked Cinthia about her father's health condition. She told him that they were travelling to Nashville to visit her father, who had just had a stroke, but she did not know where he lived. Cinthia said that she was going to call her sister to find out where in Nashville he lived because she thought he had moved since she last saw him. Hill then asked if she had ever been arrested for narcotics. She replied that she had.

After speaking with Cinthia for about five minutes, Hill returned to the patrol car and explained to Collazo that dispatch had not yet called back with the check on his license. When asked, Collazo said that he was okay with waiting until dispatch called back. Hill then asked Collazo about his wife's behavior, specifically whether she was under the influence of narcotics. Collazo said that his wife might be on pain medication as a result of several recent surgeries.

Approximately 13 minutes into the stop, Hill called Agent Montgomery for assistance. Montgomery arrived roughly two minutes later and spoke briefly with Collazo. About 16 minutes after the stop began, Montgomery walked to the passenger side of the van to talk to Cinthia. Hill contemporaneously started explaining the warning citation to Collazo. A couple of minutes later, after the license check was complete, Collazo signed the warning citation,

818 F.3d 252

and Hill continued to explain the citation to him. Approximately 21 minutes after he pulled Collazo over, Hill shook Collazo's hand to conclude the traffic stop for following too closely. Collazo was "free to go" at that point as far as Hill was concerned. Hill and Collazo both remained by the patrol car chatting for another eight minutes, however, until Montgomery returned to the patrol car with Cinthia's purse.

3. Montgomery's conversation with Collazo's wife

When Montgomery first approached the van, Cinthia appeared very animated, like she was under the influence of an intoxicant. Montgomery asked her if he could speak with her, and she did not object. He could tell that she was more nervous than normal and asked her general questions about her travel plans. Cinthia said that she was travelling to Nashville to visit her father at his home because he had had a stroke. She did not know where the home was, but she was going to call her sister for directions. Montgomery thought that the fact that she did not know the address was "extremely odd." Moreover, he concluded that her answers and body language indicated deception. In particular, Montgomery noted Cinthia's "pronounced carotid pulse," "very rapid belly breathing," inability to keep her hands steady, and refusal to make eye contact.

Montgomery asked Cinthia if she was nervous because something illegal was in the van. She initially hesitated, so he repeated the question and asked, "if it is illegal, is it a little bit, or is it a lot?" Cinthia said that it was a lot and handed her purse to Montgomery. He asked if...