United States v. Gomez-Arzate
| Decision Date | 02 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-2119, No. 19-2121,19-2119 |
| Citation | 981 F.3d 832 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Jesus GOMEZ-ARZATE, Defendant - Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Guillermo Martinez-Torres, Defendant - Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Sylvia Baiz, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Defendant-Appellant Martinez-Torres; and Michael Garey, Santa Ana, California for Defendant-Appellant Gomez-Arzate.
Nicholas Ganjei, Assistant United States Attorney (and John C. Anderson, United States Attorney, on the brief), Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before LUCERO, KELLY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellants Guillermo Martinez-Torres and Jesus Gomez-Arzate entered a conditional plea of guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 846, 841(b)(1)(A), reserving a right to appeal the district court's denial of their motions to suppress physical evidence and statements made during a traffic stop. See United States v. Martinez-Torres, No. 1:18-cr-1960 WJ-1, 2019 WL 113729 (D.N.M. Jan. 4, 2019). Each was sentenced to 63 months’ imprisonment and five years of supervised release. On appeal, they contend that their initial traffic stop was invalid, the resulting detention was unlawfully extended and without valid consent, and the deputies’ search of their car exceeded the scope of consent.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
On the morning of May 17, 2018, defendants were driving their vehicle (a Kia Soul) eastbound on I-40. Bernalillo County Sheriff's Deputy Joshua Mora was conducting routine traffic enforcement. He noticed the defendants’ vehicle swerving within the right-hand lane and crossing over the white shoulder line twice. He also noticed that the front driver's side tire appeared to be angled or out of alignment.
After pulling the vehicle over and activating his audio recorder, Deputy Mora approached the passenger side window where Mr. Gomez-Arzate was seated. He immediately sensed a strong odor of air freshener. He attempted to explain to the defendants why he pulled them over, but realized there would be difficulty in communicating due to a language barrier. Upon request, Mr. Martinez-Torres provided a California driver's license, a Texas vehicle registration in the name of a third party, and proof of insurance. Deputy Mora then asked Mr. Martinez-Torres to exit the vehicle and join him on the passenger side.
About three minutes into the stop, Deputy Mora radioed Deputy Daniel Mauricio for assistance in translating. While waiting for Deputy Mauricio, Deputy Mora began filling out a warning citation. Mr. Martinez-Torres explained that the misaligned tire was due to a previous accident, and he asked Deputy Mora if he wanted to know the "motive of [their] trip." 3 Aplt. Gomez-Arzate App. 335. However, Deputy Mora told Mr. Martinez-Torres to hold off until Deputy Mauricio arrived.
Approximately 10 minutes into the stop, Deputy Mauricio arrived and explained to Mr. Martinez-Torres that Deputy Mora had seen the vehicle swerve and there appeared to be a problem with the left front tire. Mr. Martinez-Torres explained that a bent wheel was due to a previous accident.
The deputies then asked Mr. Martinez-Torres for permission to check the vehicle's VIN numbers and Mr. Martinez-Torres replied that it was "okay." Id. at 339. This request occurred about 11 minutes into the stop and approximately one minute after Deputy Mauricio arrived. They also told Mr. Gomez-Arzate that they were going to check the VIN numbers, and he also said "okay." Id. at 340.
While checking the VIN numbers, Deputy Mauricio asked Mr. Gomez-Arzate whether he could ask him some additional questions about his travel plans. Mr. Gomez-Arzate said "[o]h, yes," id. at 340–41, and told the deputies that he and Mr. Martinez-Torres were traveling from California to Dalhart, Texas, then on to Dumas, Texas, both near Amarillo. When asked who owned the vehicle, Mr. Gomez-Arzate responded that it belonged to a man in Dumas, Texas who let them borrow it. They were travelling from California to Texas, staying three or four days to make a house habitable, and then returning with family.
About 15 minutes into the stop, the deputies told Mr. Martinez-Torres that they were going to give him back his documents as well as a warning citation for careless driving, N.M. Stat. § 66-8-114, and that he would not have to go to court or pay anything. Mr. Martinez-Torres signed the citation approximately 16 minutes into the stop.
As Mr. Martinez-Torres began walking back to his vehicle, Deputy Mora yelled to him, "Guillermo!" Id. at 346. When he walked back, the deputies asked, Id. And again, "[d]o you – do you understand that you are – you are free to go?" Id. Mr. Martinez-Torres responded "[y]es." Id.
The deputies began asking him questions about their travel plans. Mr. Martinez-Torres told the deputies that they were travelling from Santa Ana, California, to Amarillo, Texas. He and Mr. Gomez-Arzate were going for three or four days to see a house and visit friends. But, Mr. Martinez-Torres said that he did not know the name of the person they planned to visit. When asked who owned the vehicle, Mr. Martinez-Torres said that it was Mr. Gomez-Arzate's, and that they had picked it up in Amarillo and driven to California.
The deputies then returned to the vehicle to talk to Mr. Gomez-Arzate. They told him that they gave Mr. Martinez-Torres a warning and said, Id. at 353. Mr. Gomez-Arzate said that he understood and that it was no problem. Mr. Gomez-Arzate proceeded to reiterate their travel plans: they were going to Dumas, Dalhart, and Hartley, Texas, where there was a cattle ranch and they planned to clean a house. He obtained the vehicle from the ranch when his truck broke down. When asked the name of the owner of the vehicle, Mr. Gomez-Arzate said that he did not know the owner's name but knew the owner's friend, whose name was Jackie or Ezequiel.
The deputies turned back to Mr. Martinez-Torres and asked if he was responsible for everything in the vehicle. He claimed responsibility for only his clothes and bookbag. He denied having any drugs, weapons, or large bulk currency. The deputies then asked if they could search the car, but Mr. Martinez-Torres’ response was inaudible on the recording.
While Mr. Martinez-Torres waited, Mr. Gomez-Arzate claimed responsibility for his bag and a cooler and also denied that the vehicle contained any drugs, weapons, or large bulk currency. Finally, the deputies asked him, "[c]an we check the car and your – your things?" Id. at 367. Mr. Gomez-Arzate responded, "[y]es, you can check." Id.
The deputies provided each of the men with a Spanish consent-to-search form, which they signed. The deputies asked the men to stand about 25–50 yards away while they searched the vehicle and told Mr. Martinez-Torres that he was free to call his daughter. At this point the audio recording concluded, approximately 33 minutes after the initial stop, and the deputies began their search of the car.
During the search, they noticed that the car's fender was not flush, so they removed it but later reattached it. One of the defendants even offered to assist with reattaching the fender. The deputies also removed the air filter, but nothing else was done to the engine. Finally, Deputy Mora noticed tooling marks on the right rear quarter panel, so he pulled back the panel slightly and discovered a circular void. He removed the panel and discovered two packages, wrapped in black tape. The packages contained approximately seven pounds of methamphetamine. The entire search of the vehicle lasted a total of 90 minutes.
When reviewing a district court's denial of a motion to suppress, we review findings of fact for clear error, and view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Hernandez, 847 F.3d 1257, 1263 (10th Cir. 2017). We review de novo the determination of whether the search and seizure were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Id.
We first consider whether the traffic stop was invalid, whether the stop was unconstitutionally prolonged, and whether the deputies’ search of the car exceeded the scope of consent. The Fourth Amendment provides: "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ...." U.S. Const. amend. IV. A traffic stop constitutes a "seizure" and "therefore must be conducted in accordance with the Fourth Amendment." Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54, 60, 135 S.Ct. 530, 190 L.Ed.2d 475 (2014).
At the outset, Mr. Gomez-Arzate and Mr. Martinez-Torres argue that the initial traffic stop was not justified, claiming that Deputy Mora did not have reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop. The district court concluded that, by swerving within his lane and twice touching the solid white line, there was reasonable suspicion that Mr. Martinez-Torres violated two driving laws: New Mexico Statutes § 66-7-317(A) () and § 66-8-114 (careless driving). Martinez-Torres, 2019 WL 113729, at *4–5. We agree that there was reasonable suspicion that Mr. Martinez-Torres violated the roadways-laned-for traffic statute, and we need not address the other.
A traffic stop is reasonable if it is "justified at its inception and, in general, the officer's actions during the stop must be reasonably related in scope to the mission of the stop itself." United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Cole
...impermissibly lengthened the stop. Wayne R. LaFave, 4 Search & Seizure § 9.3(d) (6th ed 2020); see also United States v. Gomez-Arzate , 981 F.3d 832, 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2020) (a few minutes of itinerary questioning that prolonged an already completed stop violated Constitution, but extende......
-
United States v. Cole
...415 (8th Cir. 2017) )).The dissent claims that the Tenth Circuit has taken a more nuanced approach to travel-related questions in United States v. Gomez-Arzate . 981 F.3d 832 (10th Cir. 2020). In Gomez-Arzate , however, the officers' travel-plan questions came after the traffic stop was com......
-
United States v. Torres
...cause to find a parking violation. Under the Fourth Amendment, searches and seizures must be reasonable. See United States v. Gomez-Arzate , 981 F.3d 832, 838 (10th Cir. 2020). A traffic stop is reasonable if it is "justified at its inception" and the officers’ actions during the stop are "......
-
Pryce v. State
...to justify detaining an individual." Rodriguez , 575 U.S. at 355, 135 S.Ct. at 1615 ; see also United States v. Gomez-Arzate , No. 19-2119, 981 F.3d 832, 840 n.3 (10th Cir. Dec. 2, 2020) (recognizing that travel plan questions may fall into scope of traffic stop, but not when questions prol......