Tenth Circuit US v Chavez 10-2273

Decision here.

   This decision relates in part to a motion to suppress evidence, and in part to sentencing guidelines.  I'm really not all that interested in sentencing guidelines, so I'll only be discussing half of the case here.

   The facts: Police in New Mexico were dispatched to a call of a disturbance in a Wal-Mart parking lot, with people urinating and (gasp!) littering.  Officers arrived as Chavez was driving away, and a Wal-Mart employee flagged them down and pointed out the car that Chavez was driving away in.  Chavez was detained for the investigation of the disturbance.

   During the officers' contact with Chavez, they noticed indicia of intoxication and Chavez failed the field sobriety tests (much as I would right now, so you might have to forgive a little rambling).  Rather than arrest him for DUI, they threatened to arrest him and then asked for consent to search the car and interrogated him about the ownership of the car (Chavez said it was his friend's car, but the registration listed to another name that Chavez was unable to explain).  At various points during the investigation, Chavez consented to the search, denied consent, then consented to a K9 searching the outside of his car (the dog arrived half an hour into the stop), then the inside of his car, and then refused to consent to a search of his trunk after the K9 alerted.  Eventually, Chavez was arrested for DUI and the car was impounded.  Later the police ran a K9 on the outside of the car again, which alerted on the trunk, then obtained a search warrant for the trunk where they found cocaine.

   That last part makes more sense if you know that the Carroll doctrine doesn't apply in NM, because the NM constitution affords more protection against search & seizure of automobiles than the federal constitution.

   Anyway, Chavez was charged with possession with intent to distribute, and suddenly the DUI was the least of his problems.  He filed a motion to suppress the cocaine on several grounds: 1- there was no reasonable suspicion to stop him in the first place, 2- the police had no probable cause to arrest him for DUI 3- the scope of his detention was unreasonable, and 4- his consent to search the car was involuntary (and not attenuated from the illegal stop and arrest),

   Before we get to the court's opinion, here's mine (it's my blog, after all): 1- fuck off.  The police were responding to a call of a disturbance, and the reporting party pointed to Chavez's car, identifying it as the suspect vehicle.  There was reasonable suspicions.  2- fuck off.  The police had probable cause to arrest Chavez for DUI.  Frankly, I'm not sure why they didn't just skip over making threats to arrest him and just arrest him.  I don't do that... if I've got enough to take you, I'm taking you now.  If I don't have enough to take you, I'm not taking you.  But I don't mess around with telling people repeatedly that they're "this close" to going to jail.  What's the point? 3- Chavez almost has a point.  Extending a detention for 30 minutes to get a dog is probably unreasonable, except that the police had PC to arrest at that point so they can extend the stop all day if they want to. 4- Chavez DOES have a point.  The consent to search was clearly involuntary... If I tell you that you're an inch from going to jail and then ask you for consent to search something, who could possibly miss the implied threat?  I don't know if the evidence should have been suppressed, though, since if the police were to just go ahead and make the arrest that they had PC for then they would have likely found it during an inventory of the car...

   Here's what the court says: 1- The stop was justified by reasonable suspicion.  2- The police had PC to arrest Chavez for DUI.  3- Because the police had PC to arrest, the court doesn't care about the extension of the stop.  PC isn't always required to extend a stop, but it is sufficient (although the court does note that even if there hadn't been PC, the extension of the stop would have been reasonable.  The court and I disagree on this, but when the court and I disagree, the court wins). 4- Since the stop and arrest were both reasonable the court didn't see fit to address Chavez's consent argument at all.

   So there you go.  Although I don't much care for the way this call was handled, I do like the court's take on it.