F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
May 23, 2006
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 05-7082
v. (E.D. Oklahoma)
LETICIA A. RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a (05-CR-00005-W )
Rebecca Garcia-Beltran,
Defendant-Appellant.
OR DER & JUDGM ENT *
Before H E N RY, BR ISC OE, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel
has determined unanimously to grant the Appellant’s unopposed motion to submit
this appeal on the briefs. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2); 10 TH C IR . R. 34.1(G). The
case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Defendant-appellant Leticia A. Rodriguez was indicted on one count of
possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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
may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
and (b)(1)(A)(ii). After the district court denied her motion to suppress evidence
that was found in her vehicle during a traffic stop, M s. Rodriguez entered a plea
of guilty to the indictment, with the condition that she could appeal the
suppression ruling. This ruling is the only issue on appeal. Exercising
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district court’s denial of
her motion to suppress.
I. BACKGROUND
On December 1, 2004, Oklahoma H ighway Patrol Trooper Cody Hyde
stopped M s. Rodriguez for having a defective tag lamp. At his request, she joined
him in his patrol car while he checked her registration and wrote her a warning
citation. During this time, Trooper Hyde asked M s. Rodriguez a number of
questions related to her travel plans. M s. Rodriguez clearly was not fluent in
English, and Trooper Hyde sometimes interspersed a Spanish word in his
questions to facilitate dialogue. Nonetheless, she knew and understood enough
English to comply with Trooper Hyde’s requests and explain to him that she was
on her way to Atlanta to purchase a truck. After writing M s. Rodriguez the
warning citation, he returned her license and registration, told her she did not
have to pay any money, and to be careful on her trip.
Immediately after this, Trooper Hyde asked M s. Rodriguez whether he
could ask her a couple more questions. The district court found that M s.
Rodriguez responded “I don’t . . . . Do I need to take the paper to get my taillight
2
or my license tag light fixed?” Rec. vol. II, at 9 (Tr. of Suppression Hr’g, dated
Feb. 16, 2005). Trooper Hyde answered this question, and then proceeded to ask
her whether she had any guns in her car, and whether she had any drugs like
marijuana or cocaine in the car. M s. Rodriguez, without hesitation, answered
“no” to each of these questions. W hen Trooper Hyde asked whether he could
search the car, she replied “yes.” During the search, Trooper Hyde located
cocaine in M s. Rodriguez’s vehicle.
The Government indicted M s. Rodriguez for one count of possession of
cocaine with intent to distribute. She filed a motion to suppress the evidence
found during the search of her vehicle, arguing (1) that Trooper Hyde lacked
reasonable suspicion to search, and that she did not consent to the extension of
the traffic stop, and (2) that M s. Rodriguez did not give knowing and intelligent
consent to search her vehicle because she was unable to communicate
meaningfully with Trooper Hyde. At a hearing, where the parties stipulated to the
admission of a videotape of the stop, the district court denied M s. Rodriguez’s
motion to suppress. The district court found that “[d]uring that exchange [where
the Trooper asked additional questions], there was no hesitation on [M s.
Rodriguez’s] part, at all, which leads me to believe that she fully understood the
questions that were being asked and intelligently made a decision [to] consent to a
search and to consent to an extended stop.” Id.
M s. Rodriguez pleaded guilty to the one-count indictment, with the
3
condition that she could appeal the district court’s decision on the suppression
motion. The district court sentenced her to 71 months’ imprisonment, plus a term
of 60 months’ supervised release. This appeal followed, with M s. Rodriguez
raising the same tw o arguments that she did below.
II. D ISC USSIO N
In reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress, we accept the district court’s
factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. United States v. Bradford, 423
F.3d 1149, 1156 (10th Cir. 2005). Those findings include determinations of
credibility, the weight to be given to the evidence, as well as reasonable
inferences and conclusions that may be drawn from the evidence. United States v.
Hunnicutt, 135 F.3d 1345, 1348 (10th Cir. 1998). The question of whether an
individual consented to a search of the vehicle is a question of fact that we review
for clear error. United States v. Rosborough, 366 F.3d 1145, 1149 (10th Cir.
2004). W e view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, but
the “ultimate determination of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment . . . is
a question of law which we review de novo.” Bradford, 423 F.3d at 1156.
The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures.” U.S. C ONST . amend. IV. A traffic stop constitutes a “seizure” within
the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, “even though the purpose of the stop is
limited and the resulting detention quite brief.” Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S.
4
648, 653 (1979). Because a routine traffic stop is more analogous to an
investigative detention than a full custodial arrest, we analyze a traffic stop under
the principles of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
Under Terry, to determine whether an investigative detention or traffic stop
was reasonable, w e ask two questions: first, whether the stop was justified at its
inception, and second, whether the scope of the detention was reasonably related
to the circumstances that justified the stop. United States v. Caro, 248 F.3d 1240,
1244 (10th Cir. 2001). M s. Rodriguez does not challenge the validity of Trooper
Hyde’s initial stop of her vehicle. Therefore, we proceed to her contention that
Trooper Hyde impermissibly exceeded the scope of that detention by asking her
questions unrelated to the traffic stop after he had issued her a warning citation.
A. Extension of Traffic Stop
“[D]uring [a justified] stop, an officer may ask routine questions about the
driver’s travel plans.” Bradford, 423 F.3d at 1156. “After the officer has issued
the citation, however, the driver must be allowed to proceed on his way, without
being subject to further delay by the police if he has produced a valid license and
proof that he is entitled to operate the car.” United States v. Zubia-M elendez, 263
F.3d 1155, 1161 (10th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[F]urther
detention for purposes of questioning unrelated to the initial stop is impermissible
unless (1) the officer has an objectively reasonable and articulable suspicion that
illegal activity has occurred or is occurring, or (2) the initial detention has
5
become a consensual encounter.” Bradford, 423 F.3d at 1156-57.
“A traffic stop may become a consensual encounter, requiring no
reasonable suspicion, if the officer returns the license and registration and asks
questions without further constraining the driver by an overbearing show of
authority.” United States v. West, 219 F.3d 1171, 1176 (10th Cir. 2000).
“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.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). “The government bears the burden of proving
voluntary consent based on the totality of the circumstances.” United States v.
Gregoire, 425 F.3d 872, 879 (10th Cir. 2005).
Here, the district court found that although Trooper Hyde and M s.
Rodriguez had some problems communicating, she did not hesitate to answ er his
questions. This lack of hesitation, coupled with the court’s examination of the
entire videotape of the encounter, led the court to conclude that “she fully
understood the questions that were being asked and intelligently made a decision
to . . . consent to an extended stop.” Rec. vol. II, at 9.
After reviewing the videotape, we cannot say that the district court’s
findings were clearly erroneous. M s. Rodriguez and Trooper Hyde clearly had
some trouble communicating, but they also were able to communicate effectively
in some instances. Although M s. Rodriguez did not explicitly consent to
6
remaining with Trooper Hyde to answ er additional questions, she appeared to
understand and easily answer his questions. M oreover, M s. Rodriguez admits that
Trooper Hyde had returned her license and registration before he began to ask her
additional questions. Finally, as the district court stated, “[o]n the key questions
regarding possession of guns or drugs she answered unequivocally and without
hesitation in the negative. W hen ask[ed] if she would consent to a search of her
automobile, she responded unhesitatingly in the affirmative.” Rec. vol. I, doc. 13,
at 1-2 (D ist. Ct. Order, filed Feb. 17, 2005).
Significantly, the district court did not find, and M s. Rodriguez does not
argue, that Trooper Hyde made any overbearing show of authority when he
continued to ask her questions. Rather, she relies on a Ninth Circuit case and
contends that unless a person is explicitly told that she is free to leave then a
reasonable person would not have concluded that she is free to exit the patrol car.
See United States v. Chavez-Valenzuela, 268 F.3d 719, 725 (9th Cir. 2001)
(“Upon returning [the defendant’s] documents, [the officer] then asked him a
question implying that he suspected [the defendant] of criminal activity.
Confronted with this situation, a reasonable motorist–even with license and
registration in hand– most likely would not have believed he could disregard the
officer’s inquiry and end the conversation.”). M s. Rodriguez also argues that she
was improperly detained because she did not explicitly consent to continuing the
encounter.
7
W e disagree. In this circuit, when considering whether an individual
voluntarily consents to an encounter, we look to the “totality of the
circumstances,” and do not require “that law enforcement advise . . . that a citizen
may terminate the encounter, though this . . . may be considered in a totality of
the circumstances approach to voluntariness.” Gregoire, 425 F.3d at 879. “An
officer is not required to inform a suspect that she does not have to respond to his
questioning or that she is free to leave.” Bradford, 423 F.3d at 1158. M s.
Rodriguez’s situation is very similar to the defendant’s in Bradford, where we
explained that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have known
that she was free to leave.
Although we are troubled by the fact that [the defendant] was sitting in
the patrol car while [the officer] questioned her after handing back her
documents, there is no indication here that [the officer] made any
coercive show of authority . . . suggesting that the detention had not
ended. . . . Thus, after [the officer] handed back the documents, the
traffic stop was over, and they were engaged in a consensual encounter.
Id. at 1159 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
W e therefore conclude that the district court’s finding that M s. Rodriguez
voluntarily consented to the extended encounter with Trooper Hyde was not
clearly erroneous. Because M s. Rodriguez consented to the extension of the
traffic stop, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred. W e next consider whether
M s. Rodriguez voluntarily consented to the search of her vehicle.
B. Consent to Search Vehicle
8
Consent to further detention does not automatically give an officer
permission to search a suspect’s vehicle. W e have held that a vehicle may be
searched without probable cause “if a person in control of the vehicle has given
his voluntary consent to the search.” Zubia-M elendez, 263 F.3d at 1162.
“W hether voluntary consent was given is a question of fact, determined by the
totality of the circumstances and reviewed for clear error.” Id.
M s. Rodriguez challenges Trooper Hyde’s search of her car, arguing that
her consent was invalid because it was the fruit of an unlawful detention. But
because we held above that her detention for additional questioning was not
unlawful, this argument fails. W e therefore proceed to M s. Rodriguez’s
additional argument, that she could not have given voluntary and intelligent
consent to the search of her vehicle because of the language barrier between her
and Trooper H yde.
“W e have developed a two-step test for determining the voluntariness of a
consent to search: the government must (1) proffer clear and positive testimony
that consent was unequivocal and specific and freely and intelligently given, and
(2) prove that this consent was given without implied or express duress or
coercion.” United States v. Sanchez, 89 F.3d 715, 719 (10th Cir. 1996) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Our application of this test in Zubia-M elendez is particularly instructive.
There, the defendant, like M s. Rodriguez, spoke only limited English and had
9
some difficulty communicating with the trooper. The defendant initially refused
to allow the trooper to search his vehicle, but after being asked a second time for
consent to search replied “Yeah, no matter.” 263 F.3d at 1163. At the
suppression hearing, the defendant testified and admitted that he understood some
of the officer’s questions regarding his name, identification, and ownership of the
vehicle. Nonetheless, the defendant contended that he had insufficient familiarity
with the English language to have given knowing and voluntary consent.
In reviewing the district court’s finding of consent, we stated that “[the
defendant’s] consent appears to have come without hesitation when he was asked
a second time for permission to search the vehicle.” Id. M oreover, “the district
court specifically found . . . that [the defendant and trooper] could converse
sufficiently to understand one another.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Additionally, we explained that the fact that the trooper had “neither told [the
defendant] he was free to leave nor informed him that he could refuse consent . . .
should be considered in determining whether consent was voluntary.” Id. Our
review of the videotape evidence, however, revealed no physical or verbal
coercion on the part of the trooper. In light of the totality of the circumstances,
we acknowledged that the question “is a close one,” but held that the district
court’s finding that the defendant had given voluntary consent was not clearly
erroneous. Id.
M s. Rodriguez’s and Trooper Hyde’s interaction was similar to the
10
situation in Zubia-M elendez. Here, the district court acknow ledged that M s.
Rodriguez had some trouble communicating with Trooper Hyde, but explicitly
found that, when she was asked for her consent to search, “there was no hesitation
on the defendant’s part, at all,” and that “she [was] understanding the majority of
what was being said to her.” Rec. vol. II, at 9. Although Trooper Hyde did not
inform M s. Rodriguez she was free to leave and free to refuse consent, like in
Zubia-M elendez, our review of the videotape evidence does not reveal, nor does
M s. Rodriguez allege, that Trooper Hyde exerted any kind of physical or verbal
coercion. Thus, based on the totality of the circumstances, we cannot conclude
that the district court clearly erred in finding that M s. Rodriguez gave knowing
and voluntary consent to search her vehicle. Because M s. Rodriguez consented to
the search, the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against searching a vehicle
without probable cause is not applicable.
III. C ON CLU SIO N
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of M s.
Rodriguez’s motion to suppress.
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
11