FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
June 8, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 08-4143
v. (D. Utah)
JOSE ALFREDO LOPEZ-GUTIERREZ, (D.C. No. 2:05-CR-00867-TS-1)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO, MURPHY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
I. Introduction
Defendant-Appellant Jose Alfredo Lopez Gutierrez appeals his conviction
for Possession of Methamphetamine With Intent to Distribute in violation of 21
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On appeal he argues the district court failed to suppress
evidence seized during a search of the car he was driving. Exercising jurisdiction
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district
court’s denial of the suppression motion because the police had reasonable
suspicion to temporarily detain Lopez while a dog sniff was conducted, and had
probable cause to search the vehicle when the dog alerted to drugs.
II. Background
Lopez was pulled over in Cedar City, Utah, for tailgating, making an
improper lane change, and possessing tinted windows darker than allowable under
state law. A female passenger was riding in the vehicle. When the officer
approached and looked inside the vehicle, he immediately noticed scarring on the
seat belt bolts and a reattached airbag compartment in the dashboard. Based on
his training, the officer considered both of these alterations to the vehicle’s
interior to be indicative of hiding places for contraband. The officer also
observed one picture of Jesus Malverde affixed to the dashboard and another
hanging from Lopez’s necklace. The officer recognized the images of Jesus
Malverde, who is considered a patron saint by some drug traffickers. The officer
observed an air freshener, which he thought might be used to mask the smell of
drugs, as well as a rose on the dashboard, which he characterized as a
“distraction.” Finally, the officer observed three cell phones in the vehicle’s
center console. He believed, based on his training and experience, that
-2-
individuals engaged in criminal activity often carried extra cell phones to have
multiple lines of communication available. Lopez told the officer he and the
passenger were returning to Kansas after spending “about a week” in Las Vegas
on vacation. The officer observed only one small suitcase in the vehicle,
however, which in his view was less luggage than would be expected for a trip of
that duration.
The officer asked Lopez to return with him to the patrol vehicle to receive a
written warning. When Lopez got out of his car, instead of following the officer
to the patrol vehicle, he assumed a position to be frisked for weapons. The
officer told him a frisk was not necessary and motioned him to sit in the patrol
car. Once in the patrol car, while the officer was writing out the warning, he
asked additional questions about Lopez’s travels. Lopez changed his account
about the duration of the trip, now saying it had been three or four days. Lopez
also, without prompting, told the officer a friend had taken the vehicle overnight
while Lopez was in Las Vegas. The officer testified this spontaneous statement
was suspicious and interpreted it as an attempt by Lopez to distance himself from
any contraband that might be found in the vehicle.
Prior to giving Lopez the written warning he had been preparing, the
officer asked Lopez if there was anything illegal in the vehicle. Lopez said no.
The officer then asked if he could search the vehicle, and Lopez said yes. The
officer then returned to Lopez’s vehicle and briefly questioned the female
-3-
passenger. She said the two had been staying in a motel, which contradicted
Lopez’s account of them staying with a friend. The officer then deployed his
certified drug sniffing dog, Gino, for a sweep around the exterior of the vehicle.
Gino alerted to the rear of the vehicle, so the officer opened the rear cargo door
and deployed Gino inside the vehicle. The dog then indicated at the area between
the second and third rows of seats. The officer searched that area by hand and
discovered 6.73 pounds of methamphetamine hidden inside one of the rear seats.
At trial, Lopez attempted to suppress the methamphetamine, arguing the
search was conducted without probable cause or valid consent. The district court
rejected the suppression request, ruling Lopez did not have a legitimate
possessory interest in the vehicle to assert a Fourth Amendment violation, 1 and
even if he did, the officer had both probable cause to search the vehicle and valid
consent. Lopez pleaded guilty, and now appeals.
III. Discussion
A district court’s decision on a motion to suppress evidence is reviewed de
novo. United States v. Contreras, 506 F.3d 1031, 1035 (10th Cir. 2007). The
factual findings underlying its decision, however, are reviewed for clear error. Id.
1
The vehicle’s expired registration was in the name of a third party, and
Lopez was unable to provide the officer with the owner’s full name or telephone
number. There was, however, an expired insurance card indicating the vehicle
had been insured by Lopez.
-4-
Lopez does not contend his initial traffic stop was invalid. Rather, he
argues the government unlawfully prolonged the traffic stop and searched the
interior of his vehicle without valid consent. The police may search the interior
of a vehicle if there is probable cause that there is contraband inside the vehicle.
See United States v. Vazquez, 555 F.3d 923, 929 (10th Cir. 2009). An alert by a
certified drug-sniffing dog during a sweep of the exterior of the vehicle can give
probable cause to search the interior. Id. at 929-30; United States v. Clarkson,
551 F.3d 1196, 1203 (10th Cir. 2009).
Here, Gino’s alert, along with the other information known to the officer at
the time, created probable cause to search the interior of the vehicle. The only
issue is whether Lopez was being lawfully detained when the sweep with Gino
commenced. A traffic stop may be extended if the officer has reasonable
articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Vazquez, 555 F.3d at 929. Reasonable
suspicion is a “particularized and objective basis for suspecting the person
stopped of criminal activity.” United States v. Alcaraz-Arellano, 441 F.3d 1252,
1259 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). “It represents a minimum level of
objective justification which is considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a
preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 1260 (quotations omitted). This court
“accords appropriate deference to the ability of a trained law enforcement officer
to distinguish between innocent and suspicious actions.” Clarkson, 551 F.3d at
-5-
1201 (quotation omitted). Reasonable suspicion is determined based on the
totality of the circumstances present. Id.
The record indicates the traffic stop became prolonged, at the earliest, when
the officer began asking additional questions while sitting in the patrol car with
Lopez. 2 At that point, the officer had ample reason to be suspicious of possible
drug trafficking. There were multiple signs of hidden compartments in the
interior of the vehicle. There was an air freshener and a rose in the car, which the
officer suspected were devices to mask the scent of drugs. There were more cell
phones in the car than passengers. There were multiple images of Jesus
Malverde, considered by some to be a patron saint of drug traffickers. Lopez and
his companion had less luggage than would be expected for a week-long vacation.
Finally, Lopez automatically assumed a position to be frisked for weapons
without being asked to do so. These factors taken together, particularly the
evidence of the hidden compartments, gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that
Lopez may have been engaged in drug trafficking. The police officer was
therefore justified in prolonging the length of the traffic stop.
2
The record is unclear as to when the officer completed filling out the
warning while he was questioning Lopez in the patrol vehicle. Once the written
warning was completed, the officer’s refusal to give Lopez the warning meant
Lopez was not free to terminate the encounter and thus was still being detained
beyond the original purpose of the traffic stop, which required reasonable
suspicion of some criminal activity. It is unnecessary to determine the precise
point during the questioning when the stop became prolonged, however, because
the officer had reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop before the questioning
began.
-6-
The police officer’s questioning prior to the deployment of the drug-
sniffing dog only served to heighten his suspicions and further justify the
detention. Lopez gave an inconsistent statement about the length of his stay in
Las Vegas and spontaneously told the officer that the vehicle had been in his
friend’s possession overnight. The passenger in the car told the officer they had
stayed in a motel, not in a friend’s house as Lopez had indicated. These
inconsistencies gave the officer justification to prolong the traffic stop further and
deploy Gino. Therefore, the detention was lawful at the time Gino alerted to
drugs inside the vehicle. 3
IV. Conclusion
The district court correctly denied Lopez’s motion to suppress because the
police had probable cause to conduct the search following a lawful detention.
Therefore, the district court’s decision is affirmed.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
3
The government contends, and the district court ruled, that Lopez did not
demonstrate a possessory interest in the vehicle sufficient to permit him to assert
a Fourth Amendment violation. It is unnecessary to reach this issue on account of
the officer having probable cause to search the vehicle. Likewise, it is
unnecessary to address the government’s other contention that Lopez gave valid
consent to search the vehicle, because the search was lawful even in the absence
of consent.
-7-