United States v. Verduzo-Verduzco
| Decision Date | 24 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:17-cr-00231-DAD-BAM,1:17-cr-00231-DAD-BAM |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JORGE PAUL VERDUZO-VERDUZCO, Defendant. |
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO SUPPRESS
This matter is before the court on defendant Jorge Paul Verduzco-Verduzco's motion to suppress all evidence seized pursuant to a traffic stop and subsequent search of his vehicle. (Doc. No. 17.) Defendant Carlos Alfredo Soto-Soto joined in that motion. (Doc. No. 18.) The government opposed the motion. (Doc. No. 20.) Defendant Verduzco-Verduzco filed a reply, in which defendant Soto-Soto joined. (Doc. Nos. 21, 22.) In that reply, defense counsel withdrew their initial request for an evidentiary hearing and requested that the court decide the motion on the parties' briefs and exhibits. (Doc. No. 21 at 1-2.)
On March 5, 2018, the court held a hearing on defendants' motion to suppress evidence, at which Assistant U.S. Attorney Vincenza Rabenn appeared on behalf of the government and Assistant Federal Defender Erin Snider and attorney John Garland appeared on behalf of the defendants. (Doc. No. 23.) At the March 5, 2018 hearing, the Assistant U.S. Attorney stated that the government did not seek an evidentiary hearing so long as the court found that probable causeexisted for Officer Butler's stopping of the vehicle and citing the driver for violation of California Vehicle Code § 12500(a). (See Doc. No. 25 at 26:19-27:11.) The court heard oral argument and took the motion under submission.
On August 8, 2018, however, the court placed defendants' motion to suppress on its August 13, 2018 calendar for further hearing. (Doc. No. 28.) At the August 13, 2018 hearing, the court informed the parties that after fully considering the parties' briefing on the various issues raised by the motion, it was now focused on the defendants' challenge to the inventory search of the vehicle in question. (Doc. No. 29.) Specifically, the court advised it was focused on the state of the record with respect to that issue, and inquired of the parties whether they sought an evidentiary hearing limited to that issue. Pursuant to the government's request in response to the court's inquiry, and over defense objections, the court set an evidentiary hearing. (Id.) The court held that evidentiary hearing on August 24, 2018, at which Assistant U.S. Attorney Vincenza Rabenn appeared on behalf of the government and Assistant Federal Defender Erin Snider and attorney John Garland appeared on behalf of the defendants, and at which California Highway Patrol ("CHP") Officers Matthew Butler and Shandara Kensey testified. For the reasons explained below, defendants' motion to suppress will be granted.
In support of their motion to suppress defendants submitted the declaration of Delia Rivera-Stark, a Spanish language interpreter with the Office of the Federal Defender, as well as four exhibits: two compact discs with a recording of the traffic stop as captured by the mobile video and audio recording system ("MVARS") (Exs. A-1, A-2); the report of California Highway Patrol ("CHP") Officer Matthew K. Butler (Ex. B); the incident detail report (Ex. C); and the consent-to-search form signed by Verduzco-Verduzco (Ex. D). (Doc. Nos. 17-2.) In support of its original opposition to the pending motion, the government submitted one exhibit, the vehicle registration card in Verduzco-Verduzco's name. In addition, at the August 24, 2018 evidentiary hearing, the government called Officers Butler and Kensey to testify and offered three additional exhibits into evidence: Officer Butler's curriculum vitae (Ex. 1); HPM 81.2, the CHP's policy regarding vehicle inventories (Ex. 2); and the CHP 180 form filled out byOfficer Butler in connection with the traffic stop at issue (Ex. 3). Collectively, the undisputed facts, the testimony of Officers Butler and Kensey at the evidentiary hearing, and the declarations and exhibits submitted by the parties on the pending motion reflect the following.
On September 21, 2017, CHP Officer Butler was on patrol duty travelling on Interstate Highway 5 in Fresno County when he observed a black Mini Cooper with darkly tinted front side windows, in violation of California Vehicle Code § 26708(A)(1). (Doc. No. 17-2, Ex. B at 1.) Officer Butler initiated a traffic stop and later wrote in his incident report that, as he approached the stopped vehicle, he immediately noticed the "overwhelming and pungent" odor of air freshener. (Id.) Officer Butler requested a driver's license from the driver, defendant Soto-Soto, who produced a Baja California driver's license. (Id.)
Officer Butler then asked defendant Soto-Soto to step out of the vehicle and Soto-Soto complied. (Id.) Officer Butler asked the driver if he owned the vehicle, to which Soto-Soto replied that the car belonged to the passenger, defendant Verduzco-Verduzco. (Id.) In Spanish, Officer Butler asked Soto-Soto where he lived, and Soto-Soto stated that he lived in Los Angeles. (Id.; Doc. No. 17-2, Ex. A-1 at 03:30-03:36.) When asked for his address in Los Angeles, Soto-Soto replied that he could not remember it. (Doc. No. 17-2 at 6.) Officer Butler then inquired where Soto-Soto was going, and Soto-Soto stated that he was traveling to Stockton to work in the fields, and did not know how long he would remain there. (Id.)
Officer Butler then approached the passenger-side door of the vehicle and initiated a conversation with defendant Verduzco-Verduzco, primarily in Spanish, although Officer Butler was not fluent in the language. (Id. at 8, 11.) Verduzco-Verduzco confirmed that the vehicle belonged to him. (Id.) Officer Butler asked where he was going, to which Verduzco-Verduzco responded that they were going to Stockton, mentioning that there was a friend located there. (Id.)
Officer Butler then contacted CHP dispatch and requested that the vehicle and of Soto-Soto's and Verduzco-Verduzco's names be run through law enforcement databases, as well as the El Paso Intelligence Center ("EPIC"), an information clearinghouse for drug-related investigations. (Id.; Doc. No. 17-2 at 15-16.)
While waiting for CHP dispatch to respond, Officer Butler asked defendant Soto-Soto why he did not have a California driver's license. (Doc. No. 17-2 at 7.) Soto-Soto responded that he had not gotten one, but that he had been told he could get one at the DMV. (Doc. No. 17-2, Ex. A-1 at 07:30-07:45.)
CHP dispatch thereafter confirmed that neither Soto-Soto nor Verduzco-Verduzco had a California driver's license or a record with the DMV. (Doc. No. 17-2 at 7.) The record also appears to reflect that the EPIC check on both defendants came back "clear." (Doc. No. 17-2, Ex. C.) Officer Butler then wrote two tickets, one to Soto-Soto for driving without a driver's license in violation of California Vehicle Code § 12500(a), and one to Verduzco-Verduzco for having tinted windows in violation of California Vehicle Code § 26708. (Id.) Having confirmed that neither Soto-Soto nor Verduzco-Verduzco had a valid license to legally drive the vehicle away from the scene, Officer Butler requested a tow truck to impound the vehicle. (Id.)
CHP Officer Shandara T. Kensey then arrived on the scene. (Id.) Officer Butler retrieved his narcotics dog from his patrol vehicle and walked the dog around the Mini Cooper twice. (Id.) The dog did not alert to the odor of narcotics. (Id.) After returning the dog to his patrol vehicle, Officer Butler commenced an inventory search of the vehicle. (Id. at 3.) During this search, Officer Butler opened the trunk and went through bags found therein, and examined the passenger compartments of the vehicle. (Id.) As a result of this search, Officer Butler observed five cell phones as well as "tooling marks" on the floor of the vehicle indicating to him that parts had been repeatedly removed and reinstalled. (Id.) Officer Butler also noted that there were numerous air fresheners inside the vehicle, and very few personal effects aside from the travel bags in the trunk. (Id.) Officer Butler did not complete a CHP 180, the form for documenting the property found as a result of an inventory search, at that time.
Following the inventory search, Officer Butler again questioned defendant Verduzco-Verduzco, this time about whether there were drugs, weapons, or money in the vehicle, which Verduzco-Verduzco denied. (Id.) Officer Butler asked if he could search the vehicle for drugs, and Verduzco-Verduzco consented. (Id.) Officer Butler then filled out the Spanish-language version of the California Highway Patrol's consent-to-search form. (Id.) Verduzco-Verduzcosigned the consent form. (Id.; Doc. No. 17-2 at 19-21.)
Another CHP officer, Angel A. Casas, then arrived on the scene and stood with Soto-Soto and Verduzco-Verduzco as Officers Butler and Kensey searched the vehicle. (Doc. No. 17-2 at 8-9.) During this post-consent search, the officers removed the driver's seat, removed "plastic snap in [sic] trim pieces which provide a transition between the vehicles [sic] carpet and the door seals and painted portion of the vehicle," removed the "speaker grille," and removed the speaker from the vehicle's interior. (Id. at 9.)
After searching the vehicle for approximately forty minutes, Officer Butler discovered six bundles of suspected heroin and four bricks of suspected cocaine in a hidden compartment. (Id. at 10.) Defendants Soto-Soto and Verduzco-Verduzco were thereafter arrested at approximately 4:50 pm on September 21, 2017. (Id.; Doc. No. 17-2, Ex. C.) At approximately 7:30 pm that evening, Officer Butler completed a CHP 180 documenting the inventory search. (Ex. 3 at 1.)
The Fourth Amendment states, "[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. Traffic stops, "even if only for a brief period and for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial