United States v. Gomez

• Decision Date: 05 December 2017
• Docket Number: August Term, 2016,No. 16-181-cr,16-181-cr
• Citation: 877 F.3d 76
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Brayan GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

877 F.3d 76

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

v.Brayan GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-181-cr

August Term, 2016

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: May 16, 2017

Decided: December 5, 2017

Geoffrey M. Stone (Marc H. Silverman, of counsel), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Deirdre M. Daly, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, New Haven, CT, for Appellee.

Matthew W. Brissenden, Garden City, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: Parker, Wesley, and Droney, Circuit Judges.

Droney, Circuit Judge:

This appeal arises out of a traffic stop of Defendant-Appellant Brayan Gomez. During surveillance in connection with a heroin-trafficking investigation in Hartford, Connecticut, officers observed Gomez commit several traffic violations and stopped his car. During the five-minute traffic stop, the officers prolonged the seizure by asking Gomez narcotics-related questions not pertinent to the traffic violations. After the questioning, Gomez consented to the search of a closed bag in the car's trunk, which contained nearly a half-kilogram of heroin and drug-packaging materials.

Gomez moved to suppress this evidence, arguing that, inter alia , his seizure violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers measurably extended the stop for investigatory reasons unrelated to the traffic violations. Applying this Court's holding in United States v. Harrison , 606 F.3d 42, 45 (2d Cir. 2010) (per curiam)—that questioning unrelated to traffic violations during a five-to-six minute stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment—the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Hall, C.J. ) denied Gomez's suppression motion. Shortly before the district court's suppression ruling, however, the Supreme Court held that "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," indicating that the critical question is whether the unrelated investigation "prolongs—i.e. , adds time to—the stop." Rodriguez v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 1612, 1616, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Supreme Court's decision in Rodriguez abrogates our holding in Harrison .¹ We also conclude that Gomez's seizure, albeit only five minutes in length, contravenes Rodriguez 's holding and therefore violates the Fourth Amendment. Nevertheless, we conclude that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies because, at the time of the stop, the officers reasonably relied on our precedent in Harrison . As to Gomez's other arguments, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in concluding that (i) the initial stop was based on valid probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe he committed a traffic violation, and (ii) he consented to the searches of the car, its trunk, and the closed bag in the trunk. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

BACKGROUND

I. The Heroin-Trafficking Investigation

In March 2014, Hartford police detective James Campbell and Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") special agent Michael Schatz—members of a DEA task force—were investigating a large-scale heroin-trafficking organization operating out of Hartford.² Based on information from a wiretap and cooperating sources, Campbell and Schatz suspected that the organization, led by Alex Ortiz-Gomez, was in the process of packaging several kilograms of heroin for street-level sale. In addition to this information, Campbell and Schatz knew that law enforcement officers in New Jersey stopped Ortiz-Gomez and his cousin, Defendant-Appellant Brayan Gomez, in a black Honda Accord the previous year, and during a search of the car the officers discovered nearly $80,000 in cash, which the DEA seized.³

On March 19, Campbell and Schatz began surveillance of two addresses associated with Alex Ortiz-Gomez—one in Hartford and another in East Hartford. The following morning, Campbell observed Brayan Gomez exit the Hartford address and drive away in a white Acura.⁴ Schatz followed Gomez to the East Hartford address, where Gomez briefly entered and exited the residence, switched cars, and again drove away. Gomez left the East Hartford address in a black Honda Accord—the same car involved in the $80,000 New Jersey cash seizure a year earlier.

With Campbell and Schatz (in separate vehicles) covertly following, Gomez drove to a nearby Ramada Inn hotel in East Hartford and parked the black Honda. Although Campbell and Schatz did not arrive in time to see Gomez enter the hotel, Campbell saw him exit the Ramada Inn a few minutes later carrying a "weighted" black duffel bag. After placing the bag in the Honda's trunk, Gomez drove away again, this time towards the highway; Campbell and Schatz continued to follow.

When Campbell saw Gomez place the duffel bag in the car's trunk and drive away, he notified Schatz and other nearby officers via radio transmissions that he planned to execute a pretextual stop of the Honda if Gomez committed a traffic violation. Gomez then drove through a red light before entering the highway. After Gomez merged on to the highway, Campbell and Schatz observed him speeding and changing lanes without using a directional signal.

Gomez did not travel on the highway for long; he slowed to exit via an off-ramp in East Hartford, allowing Campbell and Schatz to catch up. According to Campbell, Gomez committed a third traffic violation at the end of the off-ramp by making a right turn at a red light without stopping.⁵

II. The Traffic Stop

Shortly after Gomez exited the highway, Campbell used his unmarked car's lights and siren to pull Gomez over. Schatz arrived at the scene shortly thereafter and parked his car in front of the black Honda, which was on the road's shoulder. While Schatz remained in his car, Campbell approached the Honda on the driver's side and noticed, through the open driver-side window, that Gomez "appeared to be nervous as far as what [is] typical in a normal traffic stop"—keeping his hands on the steering wheel, visibly shaking, and maintaining his gaze forward through the windshield. Campbell asked Gomez to turn off the car's engine. When Gomez, without complying, asked why he was stopped, Campbell again directed Gomez to turn off the engine for "safety purposes."

Shortly after Gomez turned off the engine, Campbell's questioning detoured from traffic violations to the subject of heroin:

Question: After [Gomez] shut the car off, what interaction did you have with him at [that] point?

Campbell: Once he complied and shut the vehicle off, he again asked me why he had been stopped. I told him that we were conducting an investigation into bad heroin as well as firearms within the city of Hartford. Then I also told him that, you know, I observed him travel[l]ing at a high rate of speed as well as travel[l]ing through the red lights.

App'x 248 (emphasis added).⁶

At Campbell's request, Gomez provided him with the car's registration, which listed Joan Sanchez as the owner. At that time, Campbell did not also ask for Gomez's license. Campbell then asked Gomez where he was coming from, and Gomez responded, untruthfully, that he had come from home. After Campbell inquired where he was travelling, Gomez replied that he was going to the home of his sister-in-law Joan Sanchez—the owner of the black Honda—but he did not know her exact address. Then, Campbell asked for the name of Joan Sanchez's spouse; Gomez responded that she was married to Alex Ortiz-Gomez.⁷

After this initial questioning with Gomez in the driver's seat, Campbell asked him to exit the car and walk around to the passenger side.⁸ At that point, Schatz exited his car and joined Gomez and Campbell in a grass area on the side of the road. While they stood in the grass, Campbell again told Gomez that they were investigating "bad heroin that had been laced with Fentanyl and firearms" in Hartford, and Gomez replied that he did not "know anything about that." App'x 250; see also App'x 48.

According to Campbell, he then asked whether Gomez "mind[ed]" if Campbell searched the car, and Gomez replied "no, you can go ahead ... [t]here's nothing in there." App'x 250; see also App'x 50. While Schatz watched Gomez, Campbell conducted a search of the front passenger area and found a receipt from the Ramada Inn. The receipt, which displayed Gomez's name and home address,⁹ indicated a stay from March 17 to March 19 (the day before the stop) that was paid for in cash.¹⁰

After Campbell found the receipt, he approached Gomez and asked "if he had anything on his person." App'x 253. Gomez replied that he did not. Campbell then conducted a pat-down and asked him to remove the items from his pockets. Gomez removed his wallet, which contained his license, and two Ramada Inn room keys from his pants pocket. With the receipt and room keys in hand, Campbell asked Gomez if he had stayed at the Ramada Inn. Gomez initially responded that he was not staying at the hotel, but that his friends were. When Campbell pressed Gomez as to why he had the keys if only his friends were staying there, Gomez admitted that he had been staying there as well.¹¹

Campbell then asked Gomez whether he had anything in the car's trunk, and whether he "mind[ed]" if Campbell opened it. See App'x 256–58; see also App'x 58–59. According to both Campbell and Schatz, Gomez replied with words to the effect of "go ahead." App'x 257–58, 312; see also App'x 58–59, 176. When Campbell opened the trunk, he saw the black duffel bag that Gomez had carried out of the hotel earlier, a large cardboard box, and several smaller cardboard boxes stamped with the words "City Vibe."¹²

With the trunk open, Campbell asked whether Gomez "mind[ed]" if he opened the duffel bag. App'x 256–58; see also App'x 62–63. According to both Campbell and Schatz, Gomez said something along the lines of "no, but what are you looking for?" App'x 256,...