FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
April 6, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 10-5090
v. (D.C. No. 4:10-CR-00005-JHP-1)
(N.D. of Okla.)
JUAN GONZALEZ-GUYTAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges. **
Juan Gonzalez-Guytan was convicted of possession with intent to distribute
marijuana and conspiracy to commit the same. A law enforcement officer had
stopped Gonzalez-Guytan after observing his failure to yield to an emergency
vehicle while driving. Evidence uncovered during the traffic stop was presented
at his trial. On appeal, he challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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.
**
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
suppress evidence from the traffic stop and argues the officer who stopped his
vehicle lacked probable cause.
After a careful review of the record, we conclude the district court properly
denied the motion to suppress. Gonzalez-Guytan failed to yield and immediately
pull over after an officer driving behind him activated his emergency lights and
siren, as required by Oklahoma law. The traffic stop was valid based upon this
observed traffic violation. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we
AFFIRM.
I. Background
Based on a tip from a confidential informant, the Tulsa County Drug Task
Force identified an apartment as a distribution point for the storage and sale of
large quantities of methamphetamine and marijuana. The informant also told
officers to expect a load of marijuana to be transported in a white van from the
apartment. He identified one of the drug dealers as a Hispanic male.
During surveillance of the apartment, a blue pickup truck stopped at the
apartment complex, and a Hispanic man entered the apartment. Later, two
Hispanic men left the apartment, with one driving off in a white van and the other
following in a blue pickup.
The surveillance team decided not to immediately stop the vehicles but
followed them in hopes of gaining additional information. Due to heavy traffic
and a concern they could lose the vehicles, the officers decided to stop the white
-2-
van, which they believed contained contraband marijuana. An officer in a nearby
patrol car pulled into traffic with two vehicles between him and the white van and
blue pickup. The officer activated his vehicle’s emergency lights and siren, and
the two vehicles quickly moved out of the way, leaving only the white van
followed by the blue pickup ahead.
At that point, the blue pickup did not yield or immediately pull over. The
officer followed for approximately one half-mile before he could drive around the
blue pickup truck and stop the white van. The driver was taken into custody and
a search of the van revealed five bales of marijuana (approximately 500 pounds),
freezer bags, and scales.
A second officer, following behind the first officer, observed him activate
his vehicle’s lights and siren and noticed the blue pickup did not immediately pull
over. After the blue pickup finally pulled over, the second officer stopped it for
failure to yield to an emergency vehicle. Gonzalez-Guytan was driving the blue
pickup truck. During the stop, he could not produce a driver’s license and stated
he was in the United States illegally. He was taken into custody and a visual
inspection of the vehicle revealed several rolls of vacuum sealing plastic and a
digital scale.
Gonzalez-Guytan was indicted on one count of possession with intent to
distribute marijuana and one count of conspiracy to commit the same. He filed a
motion to suppress the evidence and statements obtained as a result of the traffic
-3-
stop, arguing the stop was not supported by probable cause or a reasonable
articulable suspicion that a traffic violation had occurred. A magistrate judge
held a hearing on the motion to suppress and issued a report and recommendation,
recommending the motion be denied. After considering Gonzalez-Guytan’s
objections, the district court adopted the report and recommendation.
A jury found Gonzalez-Guytan guilty on both counts and he was sentenced
to 78 months’ imprisonment. He timely appealed.
II. Discussion
Gonzalez-Guytan argues the officer who stopped his vehicle lacked
probable cause. We disagree. The traffic stop was valid because the officer
observed Gonzalez-Guytan’s failure to yield to an emergency vehicle that had
activated its emergency lights and siren, as required by Oklahoma law.
“When reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we
accept the district court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous and consider
the evidence in the light most favorable to the government.” United States v.
Harris, 369 F.3d 1157, 1165 (10th Cir. 2004). “However, the ultimate
determination of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is a question of law
we review de novo.” Id.
We assess the legality of a traffic stop under the principles established in
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). United States v. Polly, 630 F.3d 991, 997 (10th
Cir. 2011). Generally, we conduct two inquiries: (1) whether the traffic stop
-4-
“was justified at its inception,” and (2) whether “the resulting detention was
reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the stop in the first
place.” Id. (quotations omitted). Gonzalez-Guytan only challenges the legality
of the traffic stop, and thus we must examine whether the stop was justified at its
inception.
“A traffic stop is justified at its inception if an officer has (1) probable
cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred, or (2) a reasonable articulable
suspicion that a particular motorist has violated any of the traffic or equipment
regulations of the jurisdiction.” United States v. Winder, 557 F.3d 1129, 1134
(10th Cir. 2009). “[A]n individual officer’s subjective intentions are irrelevant to
the Fourth Amendment validity of a traffic stop that is justified objectively by
probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred.” City of
Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 45 (2000); see also United States v.
Orduna-Martinez, 561 F.3d 1134, 1137 (10th Cir. 2009) (“The trooper’s
subjective intent or good faith do not affect the reasonableness of the stop.”).
Even if an officer has a subjective motive for a traffic stop, this “will not
‘invalidate[] objectively justifiable behavior under the Fourth Amendment.’”
Polly, 630 F.3d at 997 (quoting Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 812
(1996)) (alteration in original).
Oklahoma law provides:
-5-
Upon the immediate approach of . . . a police vehicle properly and
lawfully making use of an audible signal or red flashing lights, the
driver of every other vehicle shall yield the right-of-way and shall
immediately drive to a position parallel to, and as close as possible
to, the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway clear of any
intersection and shall stop and remain in such position until the
authorized emergency vehicle has passed, except when otherwise
directed by a police officer.
O KLA . S TAT . A NN . tit. 47, § 11-405. Under Oklahoma law, if an officer activates
his vehicle’s emergency lights and siren, but a driver fails to yield and
immediately pull over to the right, the driver has committed a traffic violation.
Gonzalez-Guytan claims his traffic stop was unjustified and unreasonable
under the Fourth Amendment because the officer lacked probable cause to stop
him based on a violation of § 11-405. He contends a driver must have a
reasonable opportunity to (1) recognize an emergency vehicle behind him has
activated its lights and siren, and (2) check the adjacent lane to determine if it is
safe to yield and pull over. He notes the officer who stopped him wrote in his
report that Gonzalez-Guytan failed to yield but did not state how much time
passed between the activation of the lights and siren and when Gonzalez-Guytan
finally pulled over. He also directs us to a statement in a report by a third officer
present at the scene—in addition to the first officer who stopped the white van
and the second who stopped Gonzalez-Guytan—that “after several moments” of
activating the lights and siren, Gonzalez-Guytan pulled over. See Aplt’s Br. at
11. Gonzalez-Guytan claims the timing of the events demonstrates he was unable
-6-
to both recognize an officer had activated his lights and siren and then pull over,
and thus he did not violate Oklahoma law.
We are unpersuaded. Gonzalez-Guytan ignores the testimony from the
suppression hearing of two other officers involved in the pursuit. These two
officers—one who stopped the white van and the other who stopped Gonzalez-
Guytan—both testified Gonzalez-Guytan did not immediately pull over and
traveled for approximately one half-mile after the officer activated his vehicle’s
emergency lights and siren before stopping.
The magistrate judge, in the report and recommendation, considered the
evidence from the officers’ reports and their testimony at the suppression hearing.
While not making an explicit finding, the magistrate judge determined the officer
conducting the traffic stop had probable cause to believe Gonzalez-Guytan
violated § 11-405. Implicit to this ruling is the factual finding that Gonzalez-
Guytan failed to immediately yield and pull over after the officer activated his
vehicle’s emergency lights and siren. Gonzalez-Guytan does not argue this
factual finding is clearly erroneous, nor do we find a basis in the record for such
an argument. The magistrate judge obviously credited the two officers’ testimony
that Gonzalez-Guytan failed to immediately pull over and traveled for one half-
mile before finally stopping, and we see no basis to second-guess that conclusion.
The officer’s report that Gonzalez-Guytan cites—stating he did not pull
over for “several moments”—does not undermine the magistrate judge’s factual
-7-
finding. Even if it may be unclear what amount of time or distance corresponds
to “several moments,” it is clear from the officers’ testimony that Gonzalez-
Guytan failed to yield and immediately pull over in those several moments. In
addition, the two cars initially between the pursuing officer and Gonzalez-Guytan
immediately pulled over upon the officer’s activation of his vehicle’s lights and
siren. This both highlights Gonzalez-Guytan’s failure to do so as he continued
driving for one half-mile and further supports the factual finding that he did not
immediately yield and pull over.
Gonzalez-Guytan failed to immediately yield and pull over after the officer
activated his vehicle’s emergency lights and siren—a violation of Oklahoma law. 1
He has made no argument this factual finding is clearly erroneous. An officer
observed this traffic violation and initiated a valid traffic stop. See Winder, 557
F.3d at 1135 (“Our precedents leave no room to doubt the validity of a traffic stop
based on an observed traffic violation.”). Therefore, the district court did not err
when it denied Gonzalez-Guytan’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from
the traffic stop.
1
The officer activated his vehicle’s emergency lights and siren in order to
initiate a traffic stop of the white van. The magistrate judge determined the stop
was justified because the officers had a reasonable articulable suspicion the driver
of the white van was involved in criminal activity. If the officer had activated his
vehicle’s emergency lights and siren without this reasonable suspicion, our
analysis regarding Gonzalez-Guytan’s failure to yield might differ.
-8-
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM Gonzalez-Guytan’s conviction.
Entered for the Court
Timothy M. Tymkovich
Circuit Judge
-9-