United States v. Esteban
| Decision Date | 22 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:16–cr–00592–CW |
| Citation | 283 F.Supp.3d 1115 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Jerry Siaki ESTEBAN, Jr., and Phillip Uigaese Taueetia, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
Stewart M. Young, US Attorney's Office, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff.
The Supreme Court has "long held that the 'touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.' " Ohio v. Robinette , 519 U.S. 33, 39, 117 S.Ct. 417, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996) (quoting Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 250, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991) ). "Reasonableness, in turn, is measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances." Robinette , 519 U.S. at 39, 117 S.Ct. 417 (emphasis added); e.g. , United States v. Hernandez , 847 F.3d 1257, 1268 (10th Cir. 2017) ().
The circumstances of this case test how consistently the lens of objectivity should be applied throughout a traffic stop. Ultimately, the court finds that where an officer must rely on subjective considerations to justify the search of a vehicle, the Fourth Amendment's protections are thwarted. On a number of grounds, the court concludes that the traffic stop and search in this case violated the Fourth Amendment and, therefore, the court suppresses the evidence resulting from the illegal investigatory detention and search.
On the morning of October 15, 2016, Utah Highway Patrol (UHP) Trooper Jason Tripodi was on duty in Wasatch and Summit Counties in Utah. (Evidentiary Hr'g Tr. ("Tr.") 6:17–7:15, ECF No. 40.) As a member of UHP's criminal interdiction team, Trooper Tripodi was patrolling for traffic and safety violations and other criminal activities. (Id. at 7:1–3, 7:20–24, 38:20–39:7.) At some point, Trooper Tripodi parked in the median of I–80 around milepost 148 or 149 facing west and monitoring eastbound traffic. (Id. at 9:2–20.) At approximately 8:44 a.m., Trooper Tripodi observed a silver Ford pickup truck traveling eastbound. (Id. at 7:25–8:3.) When the pickup passed, he noticed that the driver appeared "hidden behind the door pillar, almost leaned back," so that he could only see the driver's arms "locked in the ten and two position," as on a clock. (Id. at 8:5–11.) This caught Trooper Tripodi's attention "because the driver had no visibility out the side windows, and usually that's a safety issue," as well as "a sign that you're trying to either hide from something or, you know just hide from someone." (Id. at 8:19–24.) Trooper Tripodi acknowledged that the positioning was not illegal and that people of different sizes assume different positions in vehicles. (Id. at 40:24–41:25.)1 Trooper Tripodi also noticed that the pickup had a California license plate. (See id. at 42:7–10; see also id. at 15:20–23.) He testified that officers target areas where drugs may be sourced and "take more interest" in "high-probability areas" like California, Nevada, and Arizona. (Id. at 42:4–6.)2
Based on these observations, Trooper Tripodi exited the median and began following the pickup. (Id. at 9:23–10:2, 42:1–10.) The dash camera video shows the silver pickup driving in the right lane on the two-lane divided highway, with Trooper Tripodi following farther behind in the passing lane. (See Dash Camera Video ("Dash Cam.") 8:44:17, Gov't Ex. 1; Tr. 12:15–25.) Trooper Tripodi did not observe any unsafe driving at this time. (Tr. 44:23–45:1, 51:12–20.) Farther ahead, an emergency police vehicle with flashing lights had pulled another vehicle to the side of the highway. (Dash Cam. 8:44:20–40; Tr. 13:9.) The pickup truck, still several car lengths ahead of Trooper Tripodi, signaled for at least two seconds and changed lanes into the left lane, providing more space to the emergency vehicle. (Dash Cam. 8:44:20–33; Tr. 10:12–16, 13:3–7.) Trooper Tripodi observed that this lane change complied with traffic law. (Tr. 46:25–47:4.)
At this point, Trooper Tripodi accelerated from about 68 mph to 77 mph, closing the distance between his vehicle and the pickup, though he believed he maintained a safe following distance. (See Dash Cam. 8:44:27–43; Tr. 50:11–16, 73:14–19.)3 After passing the emergency vehicle on the side of the road, the pickup signaled again and moved back into the right lane. (See Dash Cam. 8:44:27–49.) This time, Trooper Tripodi thought the pickup did not signal for a full two seconds prior to moving lanes, which is a traffic infraction under Utah law. (Id. at 8:44:43–8:45:12; Tr. 11:1–6.)4 Trooper Tripodi pulled behind the pickup, activated his lights, and initiated a traffic stop. (Dash Cam. 8:45:12–46; Tr. 14:4–24.) While the pickup yielded to the emergency lights, Trooper Tripodi radioed the stop and the license plate number to dispatch. (Dash Cam. 8:45:28–43; Tr. 15:1–5, 57:6–10.)
When the vehicles came to a stop on the side of the highway, Trooper Tripodi approached the pickup on the passenger side and observed that the truck bed was covered. (Dash Cam. 8:45:58–46:04; Tr. 15:9–12.) He saw the pickup had two male occupants, and the passenger appeared to be waking up. (Tr. 15:12–15.) He also noticed some dress shirts hanging in the back, along with luggage. (Id. at 15:16–19.) He would later identify Jerry Siaki Esteban as the driver and Phillip Uigaese Taueetia as the passenger. (See id. at 33:2–7.)
Arriving at the passenger window, Trooper Tripodi introduced himself and apologized for waking the passenger. (Dash Cam. 8:46:04–09.) He told the occupants that the reason for the stop was the failure to signal for two seconds before changing lanes. (Id. at 8:46:10–15.) Trooper Tripodi thanked Mr. Esteban for doing so during the first lane change, but advised that he needed to have signaled longer during the second lane change. (Id. at 8:46:16–24.) He requested Mr. Esteban's license, registration, and proof of insurance, and then said: "I'm not going to cite you for [the violation], we just need to document all of our stops." (Id. at 8:46:25–234; Tr. 16:14–18, 17:4–6.)
Trooper Tripodi continued to engage in conversation with the men while Mr. Esteban retrieved his documents. Trooper Tripodi asked if they were taking shifts driving and where they were headed, to which they responded St. Paul, Minnesota. (Dash Cam. 8:46:39–47:01; Tr. 17:12–14.) The passenger then asked whether or when would it start snowing, a question that Trooper Tripodi found odd because it was a "shift in the topic of discussion" and an "odd first thought" upon waking up. (Tr. 17:20–18:7.) Trooper Tripodi spent the next minute attempting to convince Mr. Esteban to return to his vehicle to speak with him while he filled out his paperwork. (Id. at 18:8–12; Dash Cam. 8:47:32–48:37.)5 Mr. Esteban ultimately declined. (Tr. 18:13–15, 19:10–25.) Trooper Tripodi admitted that asking a driver back to his police car while a passenger remains in the stopped vehicle is not the safest way to conduct a stop, and is not related to the stop, but is "the best way to get more information." (Id. at 64:1–8, 77:17–25.)
Trooper Tripodi returned to his vehicle and pulled up the "Citation Report" on his computer, which he uses to document every stop made, including those where only a warning is given. (Id. at 18:18–24.) He also immediately opened a chat system to ask UHP Trooper Kade Loveland to assist him on the scene while he filled out the citation report. (Id. at 20:8–14, 21:7–9.) Trooper Tripodi testified that he had his "initial suspicions" of the men based on "their behavior in the vehicle, the way that they were taking shifts and driving straight through, the hesitations to answer certain questions, like would you be okay returning to my vehicle." (Id. at 20:10–23.) Trooper Tripodi also noted that the passenger was doing most of the talking, when usually he converses only with drivers during traffic stops, and that the passenger changed the topic of conversation. (Id. at 20:24–21:4, 79:3–25, 85:24–86:13.)
Trooper Tripodi and Trooper Loveland regularly work together, and Tripodi knew that Loveland was just a few miles down the road. (Tr. 22:7–14.) Trooper Loveland is a certified narcotics detection dog handler. (Tr. 88:4–10; see Gov't Ex. 12.) Starting at 8:49 a.m., just after Trooper Tripodi had returned to his vehicle, the troopers had the following exchange on chat:
jtripodi yoo
kloveland need 786
jtripodi si, if youre not on anything good
kloveland cleared now
jtripodi just from the window have some suspicions, doesnt
want to come talk
kloveland occupants in the car
jtripodi 2
kloveland copy
[Editor's Note: The preceding image contains the reference for footnote6 ]
(Gov't Ex. 2; see Tr. 22:2–23:21, 59:23–24.) The entire exchange lasted a little less than a minute. (See Gov't Ex. 2 (showing timestamps from 14:49:01–14:49:50 GMT).)
Trooper Tripodi continued filling out the citation report while waiting for Trooper Loveland to arrive. (Tr. 23:25–24:1.) Regarding documentation, Trooper Tripodi testified that his unit supervisor trained them to document every stop, even when an officer does not intend to cite a person, so that there is "a paper trail" leading back to the stop. (Id. at 24:5–15, 53:20–54:2, 55:10–14, 71:14–72:9.) He acknowledged that no written department policy required documentation of every stop, and that an officer is authorized to give a verbal warning. (Id. at 54:3–57:5.) But he testified that he only gives verbal warnings in "less than one percent" of cases and usually when there is some other emergency for which he is called away. (Id. at 70:20–71:8, 72:10–15.)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Garth
...Defendants also ask this court to "take judicial notice of a published opinion from this jurisdiction:" United States v. Esteban , 283 F.Supp.3d 1115, 1131 (D. Utah, 2017). According to Defendants, the canine in Esteban is the same Drago here, and the evidence in Esteban established that "D......
-
Shaw v. Jones
...in this Circuit have answered that question in the affirmative. United States v. Ochoa, 4 F.Supp.2d 1007, 1009 (D. Kan. 1998); Esteban, 283 F.Supp.3d at 1127-30. The Tenth has considered and distinguished Ochoa in later cases without disavowing its reasoning. See United States v. Worthon, 5......
-
United States v. Jordan
...so that it could make such arrangements. Moreover, the court has already heard from Mr. Nope on this topic. See United States v. Esteban , 283 F. Supp. 3d 1115 (D. Utah 2017).3 These problematic aspects included Utah POST's failure to randomize the number of its hides (see id. at 189:17–192......
-
United States v. Smith
...be driven away by either of its occupants, effectively and permissibly extending the stop. The defense also cites United States v. Esteban, 283 F.Supp.3d 1115 (D. Utah 2017), where the court found that doing a criminal background check while writing a citation impermissibly extended the sto......