F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PU BL ISH
May 8, 2007
UNITED STATES COURT O F APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
No. 06-2101
JESUS CARDEN AS-ALA TOR RE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New M exico
(D .C . No. CR-05-1158 JC)
Roger A. Finzel, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Albuquerque, New M exico,
for Defendant-Appellant.
David N. W illiams, Assistant United States Attorney (David C. Iglesias, United
States Attorney, with him on the brief), Albuquerque, New M exico, for Plaintiff-
Appellee.
Before H E N RY, A ND ER SO N, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
G O R SU CH, Circuit Judge.
Jesus Cardenas-Alatorre seeks reversal of his conviction for possession
with intent to distribute a substantial quantity of methamphetamine, contending
primarily that the statute under which he was stopped while driving on a New
M exico highway is unconstitutionally vague and, therefore, the drugs discovered
pursuant to that stop should have been suppressed. The state statute in question
makes it a misdemeanor for a car’s license plate to be obscured by “foreign
material,” at least in any way that renders the plate less than “clearly legible.”
Reluctant to venture into constitutional thickets unnecessarily, we hold that,
whatever the constitutional status of the statute in question, the arresting officer
acted in an objectively reasonable manner and, under Supreme Court precedent,
this suffices to permit the fruits of the search to be used against M r. Cardenas-
Alatorre. It is on this basis that we affirm his conviction.
I
Around noon on M ay 11, 2005, Deputy Peter Roth of the Bernalillo County
Sheriff’s Department stopped M r. Cardenas-Alatorre on Interstate 40 just outside
of Albuquerque, New M exico. Appellant’s Br. 3; Tr. at 9-11. 1 Deputy Roth
testified that he pulled over M r. Cardenas-Alatorre because a license plate frame,
one of those supplied by auto dealers anxious for free advertising, obscured a
portion of the license plate on his car – specifically, the entirety of the name of
the state of registration, Arizona. Tr. at 10. This, Deputy Roth believed,
constituted a violation of a New M exico statute requiring a license plate to be
1
Citations to the transcript refer to the hearing on defendant’s motions to
suppress evidence and dismiss the indictment held in the United States District
Court of New M exico on September 22, 2005.
-2-
attached to the rear of every vehicle that is “clearly visible[] and . . . free from
foreign material and in a condition to be clearly legible.” N.M . Stat. Ann. § 66-3-
18(A) (1998 N.M . Laws, Ch. 48, § 4 (eff. July 1, 1998)) (in effect on M ay 11,
2005). 2 The license plate frame did not, however, obscure other pertinent
information, including the license plate number, the registration stickers, the
image of the distinctive A rizona saguaro cactus, or the top half of the state’s
“Grand Canyon State” motto. Tr. at 37-40; Def.’s Ex. A. During questioning by
the district court judge, Deputy Roth admitted that, based on the information that
was visible, the license plate “appeared” to be issued by Arizona, though he had
qualms it might be “fictitious” because he could not see the word “Arizona.” Tr.
at 40.
During the ensuing conversation with M r. Cardenas-A latorre, Deputy Roth
expressed his concern about the obscuring license plate frame and then asked for,
and obtained, M r. Cardenas-Alatorre’s vehicle registration, insurance information,
and driver’s license. Tr. at 12-13. 3 In doing so, Deputy Roth detected that “there
was an extreme odor of air freshener which is, in my past experience, a masking
agent” for drugs; he also thought M r. Cardenas-A latorre appeared “extremely
2
The statute w as subsequently amended; however, no portion of the statute
relevant to this case was altered. See 2005 N.M . Laws, Ch. 16, § 1 (eff. June 17,
2005).
3
Deputy Roth spoke with the defendant in Spanish as the defendant
appeared not to understand or speak English well. Tr. at 12.
-3-
nervous.” Id. at 14-15. Accordingly, Deputy Roth ordered M r. Cardenas-
Alatorre to step out of the vehicle. Id. at 18. After conducting a computer
investigation in his patrol car, Deputy Roth confirmed that the car driven by M r.
Cardenas-Alatorre was not stolen and no outstanding warrants existed for either
M r. C ardenas-A latorre or his passenger, Felis Sosa-Reyes. Id. at 21. Deputy
Roth then turned on the video camera affixed to his patrol car, returned M r.
Cardenas-Alatorre’s documents, and issued M r. Cardenas-Alatorre a citation for
failure to display the license plate properly. Id. at 21-22. 4
As the traffic stop wound down, Deputy Roth asked M r. Cardenas-A latorre
if he could speak with him further, to which M r. Cardenas-Alatorre responded,
“About?” Id. at 23, 88-89. Deputy Roth replied by asking whether M r. Cardenas-
Alatorre had any illegal items inside the car, including drugs, to w hich M r.
Cardenas-A latorre answered in the negative. Id. at 24-26, 58-59. Deputy Roth
next sought permission to search the vehicle. M r. Cardenas-A latorre variously
shrugged and nodded his head affirmatively in response. Id. at 25-26, 59-60; see
generally DVD. Deputy Roth asked the question again and M r. Cardenas-
Alatorre then verbally responded definitively, yes. Id. at 60-61. 5 At about this
4
Entered as part of the record was a digital video disc which recorded both
the audio and visual content of much of the M ay 11, 2005 stop (the “DVD”).
5
Deputy Roth subsequently clarified his request to search the car by
specifically asking whether he could search the entire car, including every
compartment within the car. M r. Cardenas-Alatorre again responded in the
(continued...)
-4-
point, New M exico State Police Sergeant Rudy M ora, who had been patrolling the
area independently, saw Deputy Roth’s car and stopped at the scene. Id. at 27-28,
99. Sergeant M ora had with him a trained narcotics detection dog. Id. at 27, 99-
100; DVD. As Sergeant M ora walked the dog around the perimeter of the
vehicle, the dog alerted to the area near the glove box. Tr. at 100-03. Deputy
Roth then searched that area and found two wrapped packages containing
methamphetamine. Id. at 31-33.
M r. Cardenas-Alatorre moved the district court to suppress the
methamphetamine seized during the traffic stop and to dismiss the indictment. In
support of these motions, M r. Cardenas-Alatorre argued (i) that the traffic stop
was an unlawful seizure because it was based upon an unconstitutionally vague
statute; (ii) even assuming the statute were constitutional, Deputy Roth did not
have reasonable suspicion to stop M r. Cardenas-Alatorre because he did not
violate the statute; and (iii) M r. Cardenas-A latorre did not voluntarily consent to
the search of his car. The district court rejected these arguments and M r.
Cardenas-Alatorre thereafter pled guilty subject to his right to appeal the district
court’s denial of his motions. Appellee’s Br. 6. 6
5
(...continued)
affirmative. See DVD at 4:26-4:51.
6
On appeal, M r. Cardenas-Alatorre pursues only his motion to suppress on
the three bases aforementioned; he does not seek reversal of the district court’s
denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment.
-5-
II
Before us, M r. Cardenas-Alatorre argues primarily that the fruits of the
officers’ search of his car should be suppressed because the New M exico statute
at issue, at least as applied, 7 is unconstitutional. M r. Cardenas-A latorre submits
that the statute is so opaque that police officers and prosecutors can use it as
something of a blank slate on which to write their own private conceptions of
what the law ought to be, thereby effecting traffic stops capriciously and in
violation of the Constitution’s prohibition against statutes of “standardless sweep”
that fail to establish “minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement.” Kolender
v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 358 (1983).
The curative aim of the void for vagueness doctrine is vital and twofold,
seeking to ensure that penal statutes “define the criminal offense with sufficient
definiteness” in order both to apprise the citizenry of what conduct is prohibited
and to prevent police from arbitrarily enforcing the laws and thereby effectuating
a form of state-sanctioned discrimination. Kolender, 461 U.S. at 357. The
arbitrary enforcement problem is especially troublesome because it carries w ith it
7
“Vagueness challenges to statutes not threatening First Amendment
interests are examined in light of the facts of the case at hand; the statute is
judged on an as-applied basis.” M aynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 361
(1988). Animating this rule is the courts’ aspiration to avoid invalidating penal
statutes on vagueness grounds “simply because difficulty is found in determining
whether certain marginal offenses fall within their language.” See generally
United States v. Nat’l Dairy Products Corp., 372 U.S. 29, 32-36 (1963).
-6-
the potential to emasculate the rights of citizens – conditioning their ability to go
about their daily business on “the whim of any police officer.” See Shuttlesworth
v. City of Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 90 (1965). 8 If the N ew M exico statute was,
as M r. Cardenas-Alatorre alleges, unconstitutionally vague as applied in this case,
it follows that the traffic stop and the search of the car culminating in the
methamphetamine possession would have occurred in violation of his Fourth
Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The traditional
remedy for such violations, of course, is the exclusion of the evidence obtained as
a result of the unlawful search. Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340, 347 (1987); see
also Hudson v. M ichigan, – U.S. –, 126 S.Ct. 2159, 2163-64 (2006); M app v.
Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
But this remedy is not exceptionless. The Supreme Court has repeatedly
instructed that the exclusionary rule ought not to be deployed when officers act in
good faith – that is, in “objectively reasonable reliance” upon a statute – even
though the statute ultimately may be found unconstitutional. Krull, 480 U.S. at
355; see also United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). The rationale
animating the good faith exception is, we are told, in harmony with the
8
Not incidentally, vague laws also pose a danger to separation of pow ers:
“‘if the legislature could set a net large enough to catch all possible offenders,
and leave it to the courts to step inside and say who could be rightfully detained,
and who should be set at large[,t]his would, to some extent, substitute the judicial
for the legislative department of government.’” Kolender, 461 U.S. at 358 n.7
(quoting United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 221 (1875)).
-7-
underlying purpose of the exclusionary rule, for if “the officer is acting as a
reasonable officer would and should act in similar circumstances[, e]xcluding the
evidence can in no w ay affect his future conduct unless it is to make him less
willing to do his duty.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 920 (internal quotation omitted).
W e find this exception applicable and dispositive here. Even assuming
(without deciding) that M r. Cardenas-Alatorre is correct that the New M exico
statute is unconstitutional as applied to him, we are unable to conclude that
Deputy Roth acted in an objectively unreasonable manner. 9 Although the
statute’s opening directive that license plates must be located “in a place and
position so as to be clearly visible,” might not, when read in isolation, be the
most specific statutory command know n to bar and bench, the follow ing clause
adds that the plate must “be maintained free from foreign material and in a
condition to be clearly legible.” This latter language arguably complements what
precedes, narrowing the contours of the conduct prohibited by the statute. 10
9
Our path in this case is consistent with our general wish to avoid, when
possible, deciding constitutional questions and thereby overturn legislative
enactments and etch in stone rules of law beyond the reach of most democratic
process. See Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 345 (1936)
(Brandeis, J., concurring) (“‘It must be evident to any one that the power to
declare a legislative enactment void is one which the judge, conscious of the
fallibility of the human judgment, will shrink from exercising in any case w here
he can conscientiously and with due regard to duty and official oath decline the
responsibility.’” (quoting 1 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations 332 (8th Ed.))).
10
See NLRB v. Federbush Co., 121 F.2d 954, 957 (2d Cir. 1941) (L. Hand,
J.) (“W ords are not pebbles in alien juxtaposition; they have only a communal
(continued...)
-8-
Under this view, the law, taken as a whole, sets out to proscribe “foreign
material” (including the auto dealer’s advertising frame) to the extent that it
prevents all of the plate from being clearly legible – that is, readable. 11
This understanding of the statute – allowing officers to effect stops only
when foreign material prevents them from reading the information contained on a
license plate – would seem to channel and constrain the discretion of law
enforcement at least to a sufficient degree that we would be unable to say that the
law lacks “minimal guidelines.” Kolender, 461 U.S. at 358-59. This
interpretation of the statute also appears to be consistent with how the current
leading New M exico case reads the law, 12 how other jurisdictions have interpreted
10
(...continued)
existence; and not only does the meaning of each interpenetrate the other, but all
in their aggregate take their purport from the setting in which they are used.”).
11
See Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed. 1989), available at Oxford
English Dictionary, http://dictionary.oed.com (last visited Feb. 15, 2007)
(“legible” is defined as “[t]hat can be read. . . [a]ccessible to readers . . .
readable”).
12
In State v. Hill, 34 P.3d 139, 146-47 (N.M . Ct. App. 2001), the
defendant, whose trailer hitch obscured registration stickers on his license plate,
argued that in order to violate the statute “the plate itself must be obscured, not
merely the registration sticker.” Id. at 147. The New M exico Court of Appeals
rejected that argument and upheld the conviction because it determined that
“registration plate” within the meaning of the statute “is a broad term” and thus
the “legibility and visibility of the registration plate would include legibility and
visibility of any renewal sticker.” Id.
-9-
similar state statutes, 13 and how Deputy Roth interpreted the law here, stopping
M r. Cardenas-Alatorre precisely because “foreign material” prevented him from
being able to read the word “Arizona.” It is worth pausing to underscore,
however, that all of this is to say merely that the New M exico statute is
susceptible to an interpretation that gives it a sufficiently clear and definitive
meaning such that we cannot say any reasonable officer would have been on
notice that the law fell beyond the constitutional pale; nothing in our analysis on
this score is meant to prejudge whether a vagueness challenge to the New M exico
law shouldn’t or wouldn’t ultimately succeed. 14
13
See State v. Hayes, 660 P.2d 1387, 1389-90 (K an. Ct. App. 1983) (in
construing a Kansas statute nearly identical to that at issue here, the court held
that “all of the tag must be legible, including the state name, which may be the
most important information on the tag,” even though the state m otto was visible
and the “statute does not specifically state that the state name must be visible.”
(emphasis in original)). W e note that Hayes has been cited with approval by this
Court on two separate occasions. See United States v. Edgerton, 438 F.3d 1043,
1048 (10th Cir. 2006); U nited States v. Ledesma, 447 F.3d 1307, 1313 (10th Cir.
2006). See also People v. White, 93 Cal. App. 4th 1022, 1025-26 (2001) (noting
“that the Legislature meant a license plate must not be obstructed in any manner
and must be entirely readable” where the statute required that license plates be
“mounted in a position to be clearly visible, and shall be maintained in a
condition so as to be clearly legible” (emphasis added and internal quotation
omitted)). W e further note that the existence of statutes nearly identical to the
New M exico statute undercuts M r. Cardenas-A latorre’s argument that “other state
statutes” “state precisely what on the plate must be ‘clearly visible.’” A ppellant’s
Br. 15.
14
The cases M r. Cardenas-Alatorre relies upon all involve statutes or
regulations much broader and less specific in nature than the New M exico law
before us. See Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 568-69, 573-74 (1974) (the statute
criminalized “treat[ing] contemptuously the flag of the U nited States”; the Court
(continued...)
- 10 -
Our conclusion is confirmed, indeed compelled, by the Supreme Court’s
application of the good faith exception to a parallel vagueness challenge in
M ichigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (1979). There, the defendant argued that a
Detroit ordinance which made it a misdemeanor to refuse to provide identification
to police upon request was unconstitutionally vague; accordingly, he submitted,
the fruits of the search conducted incident to his arrest for violating the ordinance
should have been suppressed. Id. at 34. The Court framed the issue presented in
DeFillippo much as M r. Cardenas-Alatorre has framed the issue before us –
asking whether the officer acted in an objectively reasonable fashion when
enforcing the statute in question or whether he “should have known the ordinance
was invalid and would be judicially declared unconstitutional.” Id. at 37.
Assuming the law before it was impermissibly vague, the Court found the good
14
(...continued)
observed that treating something “contemptuously” is an inherently subjective
determination and does not place a defendant on notice of what conduct is
prohibited); cf. Krull, 480 U.S. at 343, 359-60 (the statute provided for
administrative warrantless searches of auto dealers’ “records” by state officials
“at any reasonable time during the night or day”; the Supreme Court held, even
assuming that the statute unconstitutionally vested too much discretion in such
officials, “the additional restrictions on discretion that might have been necessary
are not so obvious that an objectively reasonable police officer would have
realized the statute was unconstitutional without them” (quotations omitted));
M arshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 323-24 (1978) (holding a regulation
authorizing administrative w arrantless searches by government officials –
permitting inspection of the entirety of commercial w orkplaces at any time in
order to ferret out safety violations – unconstitutional because it “devolve[d]
almost unbridled discretion upon executive and administrative officers . . . as to
when to search and whom to search”).
- 11 -
faith exception applicable and, in doing so, added critical specification to the
nature and application of the good faith exception’s “objectively reasonable
officer test” in vagueness challenges to substantive criminal law s, holding that
[p]olice are charged to enforce laws until and unless they are
declared unconstitutional. The enactment of a law forecloses
speculation by enforcement officers concerning its constitutionality –
with the possible exception of a law so grossly and flagrantly
unconstitutional that any person of reasonable prudence would be
bound to see its flaws. Society would be ill-served if its police
officers took it upon themselves to determine which laws are and
which are not constitutionally entitled to enforcement.
Id. at 38. Reasonable officers, we are unsurprisingly told, enforce the legislative
enactments they are given and do not arrogate to themselves the right to second
guess the people’s representatives, except in the most extreme of cases; the
Supreme Court’s formulation on this score seeks to balance our respect for the
primacy of the electoral process in a self-governing nation with a recognition of
the free will and the concomitant responsibility each individual has for his or her
actions. 15 And, as in DeFillippo, the good faith exception firmly disposes of the
15
The tension created by an executive officer’s dual obligation to follow
“superior orders,” but yet to remain mindful of when those orders run contrary to
fundamental social norms has been widely discussed in the military context. See
generally, Gary D. Solix, Obedience of Orders and the Law of War: Judicial
Application in Am erican Forum s, 15 Am. U. Int’l L. Rev. 481 (1999) (discussing
the Nuremberg “superior orders” defense; its tension with the core value of
personal responsibility; and the application of the defense in domestic and
international courts). The legitimacy of an officer’s rejection of a directive is
further complicated where, as here, the “order” emanates from a law created
through a democratic process – for the legislation represents an issue that “has
(continued...)
- 12 -
claim before us for we cannot remotely say, as we must, that M r. Cardenas-
Alatorre has established the law in question to be “so grossly and flagrantly
unconstitutional that any person of reasonable prudence would be bound to see its
flaws.” Id.; see also U nited States v. Vanness, 342 F.3d 1093, 1098 (10th Cir.
2003) (to same effect); W ayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 1.3(h), at 96-97
(3d ed. 1996) (describing DeFillippo as reaching “an eminently sound result”).
III
Alternatively, and in tension with his argument that the New M exico statute
is vague, M r. Cardenas-A latorre contends that the purpose of the law is merely
and specifically to ensure that cars driven on New M exico highways are properly
registered; that the statute is narrowly tailored to accomplish this purpose by
requiring visibility only of information necessary to determine the state of
issuance, the license plate number, and registration status; and that all this
information was clearly visible on M r. Cardenas-A latorre’s plate. Appellant’s Br.
15
(...continued)
already been decided by the people” through their freely elected representatives.
Brent D . W ride, Political Protest and the Illinois D efense of Necessity, 54 U. Chi.
L. Rev. 1070, 1083-85 (1987) (quotation omitted). Only in the rarest of
instances, as reflected in the standard set forth in DeFillippo, is an officer
expected to question the will of the majority embodied in a duly, and
democratically, enacted law ; like courts before us, we decline to speculate as to
the class of circumstances necessitating the exercise of such judgment. Cf.
United States v. M oylan, 417 F.2d 1002, 1009 (4th Cir. 1969) (“W e are not called
upon in this case to establish guidelines for determining in what extreme
circumstances, if any, governmental acts may be resisted.”).
- 13 -
34-38. Even without the w ord “A rizona” visible, M r. Cardenas-Alatorre argues,
Deputy Roth “admitted” that the plate was an Arizona plate by virtue of other
markings on it and could see that the registration tags were current. Id. All this,
M r. Cardenas-A latorre submits, compels us to find that he had effectively
complied with the New M exico statute and, accordingly, his traffic stop was
objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
As it happens, however, instead of “admitting” that he knew the license
plate to be a valid Arizona plate, Deputy Roth testified that the plate appeared to
be valid, adding that, because the word “Arizona” was covered, he remained
concerned, based on past experience, that the plate may have been fraudulent.
See supra p. 3. We must also disagree with M r. Cardenas-A latorre’s (current)
pinched reading of the statute as seeking only to ensure that officers can ascertain
whether a car’s registration tags are current. As we have already indicated above,
the statute has a broader sweep, making it unlawful, at the minimum, to render
any writing on a license plate illegible (that is, unreadable) by virtue of the
presence of “foreign material”; indeed, it is precisely because of the breadth of
the statute that we emphasize the limits of our decision in Part II and the fact that
the constitutionality of the law remains open to challenge. 16
16
Along these lines, we also find unpersuasive M r. Cardenas-A latorre’s
rather singular interpretation of State v. Hill, 34 P.3d 139 (N .M . Ct. A pp. 2001).
M r. Cardenas-Alatorre reads Hill as holding that the statute can be violated only
(continued...)
- 14 -
IV
Finally, M r. Cardenas-A latorre submits that, even if the initial stop itself
was valid, the scope and duration of his detention were excessive because he did
not voluntarily consent to Deputy Roth’s continued questioning at the conclusion
of the traffic citation process. Appellant’s Br. 39.
In assessing M r. Cardenas-Alatorre’s claim, we note that, under our
precedents, if, at the conclusion of a traffic stop a driver voluntarily consents to
further questioning, no seizure takes place and “the Fourth Amendment’s
strictures are not implicated.” United States v. Elliott, 107 F.3d 810, 813 (10th
Cir. 1997) (internal quotation omitted). But to decide whether consent is
voluntarily given or coercively extracted, we ask “whether a reasonable person
would believe he or she was free to leave or disregard the officer’s request” under
the totality of the circumstances. Ledesma, 447 F.3d at 1314 (quotation omitted);
see also United States v. Guerrero, 472 F.3d 784, 789 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[A]
coercive show of authority, such as the presence of more than one officer, the
display of a weapon, physical touching by the officer, or his use of a commanding
tone of voice” may provide an objectively reasonable basis for a driver to believe
16
(...continued)
if an officer cannot verify whether registration stickers on the plate are for the
current year. But, though that was the specific problem at issue in Hill, the court
there made amply clear its view that “registration plate” is “a broad term” and
that the statute’s legibility requirement “include[s],” but isn’t limited to, the
readability of registration stickers on the plate. See supra note 12.
- 15 -
that he or she is not free to leave. (quotation omitted)). By nature, this is a fact-
laden inquiry, depending heavily on “the credibility of the witnesses and the
weight to be given the evidence, together with the inferences, deductions and
conclusions to be drawn from the evidence.” Guerrero, 472 F.3d at 789
(quotation omitted). And we defer significantly to a district court’s factual
findings, reversing them only in the presence of clear error – that is, “a finding
must be more than possibly or even probably wrong; the error must be pellucid to
any objective observer.” Watson v. United States, __ F.3d __, 2007 W L 1300693,
at *5 (10th Cir. M ay 4, 2007).
M r. Cardenas-A latorre first argues that his response to Deputy Roth’s
request to question him – “About?” – by its plain terms did not amount to consent
to further questioning. Reply Br. 14-15. W hile M r. Cardenas-A latorre’s
contention has a certain appeal, the district court construed the remark and
surrounding events somewhat differently, interpreting M r. Cardenas-Alatorre as
having consented to continue his discussion with Deputy Roth though also as
reserving the right not to answ er depending upon the particular question asked:
“A bout?” means to me: “W hat do you want to talk to me about?” It’s
pretty clear . . . . If he didn’t want to answer, he doesn’t have to answer.
That’s up to him. But he answered and he gave consent to search the car.
Tr. at 145. M r. Cardenas-Alatorre identifies no convincing reason for us to reject
this interpretation as clearly erroneous. M erely providing an alternative
interpretation of the facts, as he does, will not suffice. See Watson, 2007 W L
- 16 -
1300693, at *6 (“[W]e are unable to conclude that [the appellant] has met her
burden of showing clear error merely by pointing to competing testimony.”).
Next, M r. Cardenas-Alatorre submits that, even if he did consent to further
questioning, his consent was involuntarily extracted. In support of this argument,
M r. Cardenas-Alatorre directs us to Deputy Roth’s failure to tell the defendant he
was free to leave; the “barrage of questions” D eputy Roth asked; Deputy Roth’s
tone of voice; and Sergeant M ora’s arrival with a barking drug detection dog.
Appellant’s Br. 42. 17 The district court did not make any specific findings on
these matters, but its more general finding that M r. Cardenas-Alatorre “gave
consent to search the car,” Tr. at 145, necessarily implies a rejection of the
defendant’s version of events, and we are obliged to “affirm the district court’s
suppression ruling if any reasonable view of the evidence supports that ruling.”
United States v. King, 222 F.3d 1280, 1283 n.2 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations
omitted).
W e have view ed the DVD supplied by counsel recording the traffic
encounter between M r. Cardenas-A latorre and Deputy Roth, and it simply fails to
reflect the sort of coercive atmosphere M r. Cardenas-A latorre describes. Deputy
17
M r. Cardenas-Alatorre’s related suggestion that Deputy Roth had an
affirmative obligation to tell him that he w as free to go once he returned M r.
Cardenas-A latorre’s documents is foreclosed by our case law. See, e.g., United
States v. Bradford, 423 F.3d 1149, 1158 (10th Cir. 2005); see also Ohio v.
Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39-40 (1996).
- 17 -
Roth returned M r. Cardenas-A latorre’s documents and issued the citation before
seeking permission to ask further questions; he employed no intimidating body
language or tone; and he did not block or otherwise prevent M r. Cardenas-
Alatorre from returning to his car. An illustration of the relaxed tenor of their
conversation was D eputy Roth’s joke, while casually tugging at his belt, that he is
“a little fat,” to which M r. Cardenas-Alatorre laughed and responded in kind,
“I’m a little fat, also.” Tr. at 52. The video recording also indicates that, while
Sergeant M ora arrived on the scene as this discussion took place, M r. Cardenas-
Alatorre’s back was facing the direction from which Sergeant M ora arrived; thus,
neither Sergeant M ora nor his dog were even visible to M r. Cardenas-A latorre
when Deputy Roth requested permission to search. See United States v.
M anjarrez, 348 F.3d 881, 886 (10th Cir. 2003) (consent was not coerced even
though a drug detection dog was howling loudly during the trooper’s questioning
because the dog was in the patrol car and not in direct contact with defendant); cf.
Guerrero, 472 F.3d at 789-90 (no “threatening environment” existed although tw o
officers were present because one “sat at a distance away and had no interaction
with [the defendants]”); United States v. Chavira, 467 F.3d 1286, 1291 (10th Cir.
2006). Under these circumstances, we see no legally sufficient basis for
overturning the district court’s conclusion that Deputy Roth’s continued
questioning and subsequent search of the car were part and parcel of a consensual
encounter.
- 18 -
t t t
For the foregoing reasons, the judgm ent of the district court is
Affirmed.
- 19 -