State v. Rojas

Citations: 796 S.E.2d 539; 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 152; 2017 WL 900026Docket: No. COA16-802

Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina; March 7, 2017; North Carolina; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendant Felix Gabriel Rojas filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop related to charges of trafficking in heroin. On May 5, 2016, the trial court denied the motion, and the following day, Defendant pled guilty to the charges. Defendant appealed the denial of the motion to suppress, claiming it was erroneous. The appellate court agreed with Defendant, vacating the trial court's decision and remanding for further findings.

The case's background includes a 2015 indictment against Defendant for two counts of trafficking in heroin and one count of possession with intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance. Surveillance conducted by Detective Eric Duft and other law enforcement on March 10, 2015, focused on Jaime Pena, suspected of heroin trafficking. Detectives observed Pena and his uncle, Raul Monroy, engaging in suspicious behavior, including disposing of items in a dumpster, which contained heroin residue.

Detective Chris Newman later tracked Defendant, who was driving a red Jetta with Contreras. After witnessing traffic violations, Newman initiated a stop, during which Defendant acknowledged the violations and provided his license and registration. The details of the surveillance and the events leading to the traffic stop were critical to the motion to suppress.

Detective Newman questioned the Defendant about drug involvement, to which the Defendant denied. A CJLEADS system search revealed the Defendant was on probation due to a prior drug charge in Minnesota. When asked about his probation, the Defendant attributed it to being "with the wrong people at the wrong time." During the encounter, Detective Newman noticed a cell phone in the vehicle and requested consent to search, which the Defendant refused, becoming agitated. Following this, Detective Newman decided to deploy a K-9 unit to sniff around the vehicle after a brief period of five to ten minutes.

Upon retrieving the K-9, Detective Newman observed that the previously intact cell phone was now broken on the passenger side floorboard, leading him to suspect destruction of evidence by the Defendant and his companion, Contreras. The Defendant admitted to having smoked marijuana days prior, although Detective Newman did not smell any marijuana. Detective Newman justified a probable cause search based on the broken cell phone, the admission of marijuana use, a prior meeting with a known heroin trafficker, and the brief encounter in the neighborhood. During the search, a bulging cell phone box containing packaging material and later heroin was discovered.

The recording of the traffic stop, which closely matched Detective Newman’s account, confirmed that the K-9 sniff occurred over ten minutes into the stop. After arguments from both parties, the trial court denied the Defendant's motion to suppress, initially not addressing the detention's scope. Upon the Defendant's counsel's request for specific findings, the court concluded that the initial stop was for traffic violations and that the subsequent detention for using the K-9 was not unreasonable due to the short duration and the Defendant’s admissions.

On May 6, 2016, the Defendant pled guilty to trafficking in heroin by transportation and possession, with the State dismissing another related charge. The trial court accepted the plea and sentenced the Defendant to 90 to 120 months in prison and imposed a $100,000 fine. The Defendant subsequently filed a notice of appeal. The standard of review for the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress focuses on whether the findings of fact are supported by evidence and if those facts support the legal conclusions drawn by the judge.

The trial court's conclusions of law are subject to full review on appeal. The Fourth Amendment safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures, and a traffic stop qualifies as a seizure, regardless of its limited purpose or brief duration. The scope of a traffic stop must align with its justification, primarily addressing the traffic violation and related safety concerns. A law enforcement officer's responsibilities during a stop extend to ordinary inquiries but do not include actions unrelated to the traffic mission, such as a dog sniff. According to the ruling in Rodriguez, a dog sniff may only occur if it does not prolong the stop without reasonable suspicion of additional criminal activity.

Defendant does not contest the legality of the initial traffic stop but argues that the trial court did not find reasonable suspicion to justify extending the stop for the K-9 sniff. The State claims the trial court's conclusion that the detention was "not unreasonable" suffices, arguing that requiring "reasonable suspicion" prioritizes form over substance. Detective Newman stopped Defendant for two traffic violations: failure to signal a lane change and following too closely. The permissible duration of the stop is limited to addressing these violations and safety concerns. The K-9 sniff, not related to the traffic mission, necessitates reasonable suspicion for a constitutional extension.

The trial court's findings were insufficient, as it applied a pre-Rodriguez standard concerning the length of detention rather than whether any extension was justified by reasonable suspicion. Consequently, the legality of Defendant's continued detention remains to be determined by the trial court, which must provide clear findings of fact and conclusions of law for proper review. The case requires remand to the trial court for appropriate analysis and findings.

Remand is required as the trial court is responsible for hearing testimony, resolving evidence conflicts, and determining if a constitutional violation has occurred. The court vacates the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress and the judgment from May 6, 2016, remanding the case for a new order regarding the motion. The trial court has the discretion to conduct a new hearing and gather additional evidence. At the prior hearing, Detective Newman cited failure to signal when changing lanes and following too closely as reasons for the traffic stop, although he also referenced a drug investigation. The trial court's unchallenged finding that the stop was due to a failure to signal and following too closely is binding on appeal. Judges BRYANT and DIETZ concur.