F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 13 2004
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 03-3264
v. D. Kansas
MARCO ANTONIO (D.C. No. 02-CR-40123-JAR)
CASTRO-HOLGUIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, Chief Judge , ANDERSON , and BALDOCK , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34 (a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This cause is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
*
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Marco Antonio Castro-Holguin entered a conditional guilty plea to
possessing with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of a mixture or
substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a), reserving his right to bring the instant appeal of the district court’s
denial of his motion to suppress. Mr. Castro-Holguin argues the district court
should have granted the motion due to Fourth Amendment violations involving
(1) the police’s initial stop of his vehicle, (2) his detention during the course of
the stop, and (3) the police’s search of his vehicle.
BACKGROUND
According to the district court’s description of the facts in its order denying
the motion to suppress, Deputy Knowles of the Lyon County Sheriff’s Department
stopped Castro-Holguin’s car, a black El Camino traveling northbound on I-35, at
approximately 6:30 a.m. on May 6, 2002, because it did not appear to have a
visible license plate. In response to Deputy Knowles’ request for a driver’s
license, Castro-Holguin produced a Mexican passport and visa. Deputy Knowles
then asked Castro-Holguin to come with him to his patrol car while the deputy ran
a check on his identification papers. In the patrol car, the deputy asked Castro-
Holguin about his travel plans, and Castro-Holguin told him he was traveling
from Mexico to Kansas City for vacation. Deputy Knowles then received
-2-
verification of Castro-Holguin’s identification. When the deputy proceeded to
show Castro-Holguin the problem with the license plate, he observed that the car
did have a plate but it was covered by a tinted material.
Deputy Knowles returned Castro-Holguin’s identification papers and then
asked him for consent to search the car. According to the deputy’s testimony, he
used the Spanish word “buscar” to mean “search,” but Castro-Holguin did not
appear to understand. The deputy then showed Castro-Holguin a consent to
search form written in Spanish. Castro-Holguin spent approximately twenty-five
seconds reading the form. The deputy testified that Castro-Holguin then nodded
and said “si.” The videotape of the stop, admitted into evidence, was not
recording audio at this point, and the angle of the camera did not capture Castro-
Holguin’s head. Castro-Holguin and the deputy then moved toward the El
Camino, and Castro-Holguin helped the deputy lower the car’s tailgate.
According to Deputy Knowles’ testimony, during his search of the car he
noticed a sound deviation in the bed, saw carpet had been glued on the back wall
of the interior, and noticed fresh silicone in the seams. These details made him
suspect the car had a hidden compartment. He located the compartment behind
the back interior panel at approximately 6:45 a.m. and found 100 kilograms of
marijuana inside.
-3-
Castro-Holguin filed a motion to suppress on January 28, 2003, challenging
the initial stop, detention, and search of the El Camino. Following a hearing, the
district court issued an Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Suppress on April
23, 2003. The court held that the initial stop was justified by reasonable
suspicion, based on the court’s finding that the car’s “license plate was obscured
to the point that from a few feet away in the early morning hours, it was not
visible.” R. Vol. I, tab 41, at 5-6. The court also held that the subsequent
detention did not exceed the permissible scope of a traffic stop because, after the
deputy returned Castro-Holguin’s identification papers, their encounter became
consensual. The court then held that the deputy’s search of the car was
reasonable because it was based on Castro-Holguin’s voluntary consent.
Castro-Holguin subsequently entered a conditional plea of guilty and was
sentenced to twenty-six months imprisonment, following which he would be
surrendered to immigration authorities for deportation proceedings. He now
appeals the denial of his motion to suppress.
DISCUSSION
“When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we accept the factual
findings of the district court unless they are clearly erroneous and view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the district court’s determination.” United
-4-
States v. Williams , 271 F.3d 1262, 1266 (10th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).
“We are mindful that at a hearing on a motion to suppress, the credibility of the
witnesses and the weight given to the evidence, as well as the inferences and
conclusions drawn therefrom, are matters for the trial judge.” United States v.
Caro , 248 F.3d 1240, 1243 (10th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“However, the ultimate determination of reasonableness under the Fourth
Amendment is a question of law which we review de novo.” Id.
We analyze the reasonableness of a routine traffic stop under the principles
developed in Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968), for investigative detentions.
United States v. Botero-Ospina , 71 F.3d 783, 786 (10th Cir. 1995) (en banc). The
conduct of a police officer in stopping a vehicle must be “‘justified at its
inception,’” and the ensuing detention of the vehicle and its occupants must be
“‘reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference
in the first place.’” United States v. Holt , 264 F.3d 1215, 1220 (10th Cir. 2001)
(en banc) (quoting Terry , 392 U.S. at 20).
Castro-Holguin first challenges the initial stop of his car. “An initial
traffic stop is valid under the Fourth Amendment . . . if the officer has a
reasonable articulable suspicion that a traffic or equipment violation has occurred
or is occurring.” United States v. Hunnicutt , 135 F.3d 1345, 1348 (10th Cir.
1998). Deputy Knowles stopped Castro-Holguin based on a suspected violation
-5-
of Kansas law, which requires vehicles to have rear license plates “in a place and
position to be clearly visible, and . . . maintained free from foreign materials and
in a condition to be clearly legible.” Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-133. Castro-Holguin
argues, citing expert testimony and photographs, that his license plate was in fact
legible from thirty yards away despite its plastic covering. He questions Deputy
Knowles’ credibility in stating otherwise. The district court, however, found that
the tinted plastic covering on the license plate obstructed its visibility and that the
deputy in fact “could not see the license plate clearly.” R. Vol. I, tab 41, at 6.
We have reviewed the record, which includes photographs of the back of the car,
and do not consider the district court’s finding clearly erroneous. We thus hold
that Deputy Knowles had reasonable suspicion of an equipment violation
justifying his stop of Castro-Holguin’s car.
Castro-Holguin next challenges the scope of his detention during the traffic
stop. We have held that a police officer may, during a routine traffic stop, “ask
about the driver’s authority to operate the vehicle,” check the driver’s license and
registration, and ask about travel plans. Holt , 264 F.3d at 1221. Normally, once
a motorist has “produced a valid license and proof that he is entitled to operate
the car, he must be allowed to proceed on his way, without being subject to
further delay by police for additional questioning.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). However, further questioning may occur if the motorist consents to
-6-
such questioning or if the detaining officer has a reasonable articulable basis for
suspecting the motorist of criminal activity. United States v. West , 219 F.3d
1171, 1176 (10th Cir. 2000).
In this case, the district court found that the encounter between Deputy
Knowles and Castro-Holguin became consensual, and thus no longer a seizure
under the Fourth Amendment, after the deputy returned Castro-Holguin’s
identification papers. Castro-Holguin disputes this finding, arguing that Deputy
Knowles did not allow him to return to his car and did not tell him he was free to
go. We have held that there is no bright-line rule requiring an officer to tell the
motorist he is free to go or to refuse to answer further questions before an
encounter may become consensual. See id. at 1176-77; United States v. Patten ,
183 F.3d 1190, 1194 (10th Cir. 1999). Rather, “[w]hether an encounter can be
deemed consensual depends on ‘whether the police conduct would have conveyed
to a reasonable person that he or she was not free to decline the officer’s requests
or otherwise terminate the encounter.’” West , 219 F.3d at 1176 (quoting United
States v. Hernandez , 93 F.3d 1493, 1498 (10th Cir. 1996)).
Here, there is no indication that Deputy Knowles forcibly prevented Castro-
Holguin from returning to his car. The deputy was the only officer present at the
time and testified that he did not raise his voice, display any weapon, or otherwise
make a coercive show of authority. We recognize that, as Castro-Holguin points
-7-
out, the deputy’s testimony could be interpreted to suggest that the
communication problems he was having with Castro-Holguin after he returned the
identification papers and attempted to request permission to search the car
prevented Castro-Holguin from understanding that the traffic stop had ended. R.
Vol. IV at 56. However, the determination of whether an encounter was
consensual “‘calls for the refined judgment of the trial court.’” Patten , 183 F.3d
at 1194 (quoting United States v. Werking , 915 F.2d 1404, 1409 (10th Cir.
1990)). We do not consider the court’s findings on this matter clearly erroneous
and thus uphold its conclusion that the encounter following the return of Castro-
Holguin’s papers was consensual.
Castro-Holguin also challenges Deputy Knowles’ search of the car, arguing
that he did not voluntarily consent to the deputy’s request to search.
Voluntariness “‘is a question of fact to be determined from all the
circumstances.’” United States v. Taverna , 348 F.3d 873, 878 (10th Cir. 2003)
(quoting Ohio v. Robinette , 519 U.S. 33, 40 (1996)). In the context of
warrantless searches based on consent, the government bears the burden of
establishing that consent was given freely and intelligently without implied or
express duress or coercion. Id. Here, the district court found that Castro-
Holguin’s consent was voluntary. The court reasoned that although it was unclear
from the videotape whether Castro-Holguin nodded or said “si” after reading the
-8-
consent form in Spanish, as Deputy Knowles testified he did, Castro-Holguin’s
subsequent action of “open[ing] the tailgate for the deputy, without any apparent
prompting,” corroborated the deputy’s testimony. R. Vol. I, tab 41, at 8.
Although Castro-Holguin argues there are other “plausible explanation[s]” for his
behavior, Appellant’s Br. at 16, he has not established that the district court’s
finding is clearly erroneous. His reliance on Bumper v. North Carolina , 391 U.S.
543 (1968), is misplaced because there is no indication Deputy Knowles
“claim[ed] . . . lawful authority” to search the car. See id. at 549 (holding
consent to search was involuntary where police claimed to have a warrant
authorizing the search). We therefore uphold the district court’s determination
that the deputy’s search of the car was justified by consent.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s denial of the motion to
suppress is AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-9-