Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; June 11, 2003; Federal Appellate Court
Guadalupe Ortiz-Monroy appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and a sentence reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1. The appeal arises from an incident on February 26, 2002, involving Deputy Jeff Smith of the Crawford County Sheriff's Department, who observed a Ford Expedition closely following a passenger vehicle, which he suspected to be involved in drug trafficking based on his experience. After the Expedition was stopped for having an expired license tag and the passenger vehicle swerved, Deputy Smith discovered two nervous men inside the Expedition. A criminal history check on the driver revealed a prior drug trafficking conviction, leading to consent for a search, which did not yield drugs, though a drug dog alerted to the tires.
Deputy Smith theorized that the Expedition was a decoy vehicle and radioed for assistance to locate the "load" vehicle. Later, Officer Justin Phillips found a dark blue Chevrolet Beretta, identified as the load vehicle, parked illegally at a rest area. Monroy was observed acting suspiciously, lying in the driver's seat and claiming to have been there for two to three hours without luggage, despite having a warm vehicle. Upon further questioning, Monroy exhibited signs of nervousness and produced a kitchen knife from under the driver's seat when asked about illegal items in the vehicle. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling, rejecting both the suppression motion and the request for a sentence reduction.
Officer Phillips sought consent from Monroy to search his car for illegal substances, citing Monroy's lack of luggage and unusual travel direction. Monroy agreed, exited the vehicle, and during the search, officers discovered cocaine hidden inside a tire in the trunk, which Monroy claimed did not belong to him. Following the discovery, Monroy was arrested, given his Miranda rights, but ceased further communication. He was indicted for possession with intent to distribute over 500 grams of cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(ii), entered a not guilty plea, and filed a motion to suppress the cocaine evidence. After a suppression hearing, the magistrate judge recommended denying the motion, a recommendation the district court accepted.
In reviewing the suppression motion, the court assessed Officer Phillips's actions under the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the encounter was consensual, as Monroy voluntarily engaged with Officer Phillips, which did not constitute an unlawful seizure. Alternatively, the encounter could be viewed as an investigatory stop permissible under Terry v. Ohio, allowing brief detention based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The court emphasized that officers could rely on their training and cumulative information to establish a reasonable basis for suspicion, noting that a mere hunch was insufficient but that the standard for suspicion is lower than probable cause.
Officer Phillips had reasonable suspicion to detain Monroy based on various factors: Monroy's car was parked illegally, matched the description of a car traveling with a suspicious Expedition, both vehicles had California tags, and a drug dog had previously alerted to the Expedition. Deputy Smith’s experience indicated drug transporters often travel in pairs, and Monroy's presence at a rest stop on I-40 suggested he was waiting for the Expedition. Upon Officer Phillips's arrival, Monroy's behavior—pretending to be asleep, lacking a valid driver's license, and providing inconsistent information—further raised suspicion. Officer Phillips's requests for identification and explanation were deemed minimally intrusive and justified under the circumstances. Monroy’s consent to search his vehicle allowed the investigation to proceed appropriately.
Monroy also challenged the district court's denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility during sentencing. The court's decision to deny this reduction was upheld, as Monroy's insistence that he was unaware of the drugs in the vehicle demonstrated a lack of acceptance of responsibility. Ultimately, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.
