Trejo v. State
76 So. 3d 684
Miss.2011Background
- Officer Picou stopped Trejo’s vehicle on I-55 at ~1:17 a.m. after repeatedly flashing his lights to pass; stop occurred in left lane with Trejo traveling 58-60 mph in a 45–70 mph zone.
- The stop was claimed by the circuit court to be for safety only, not for a traffic violation, and Picou had no prior probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
- Trejo’s driver’s license history showed a prior controlled-substance conviction; Trejo traveled from Houston to Ohio, a drug source city to a distribution area.
- Picou, after asking for consent to search, detained Trejo and Nutt; Nutt exited the car and a bulge was found under her clothing, yielding two kilograms of cocaine.
- Trejo was convicted of possession with intent to distribute; a suppression motion was denied at trial.
- Court of Appeals reversed, finding the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause and that evidence was fruit of the poisonous tree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was reasonable under the community caretaking function | Trejo argues stop cannot rely on caretaking; no danger apparent. | Trejo's State argues stop for safety may be justified under caretaking doctrine after if appropriate. | Stop not reasonable under caretaking; exclusionary result affirmed. |
| Whether there was probable cause or reasonable suspicion for the initial stop | State contends some suspicions may justify temporary detention; prior facts insufficient. | Trejo contends no crime observed and no exigent circumstances. | No probable cause or reasonable suspicion; stop invalid. |
| Whether the cocaine evidence should be suppressed as fruit of an unlawful stop | Trejo seeks suppression of cocaine due to unlawful stop. | State contends any evidence derived from caretaking may be admissible if stop justified. | Reversal and suppression of the cocaine due to unlawful stop under caretaking doctrine. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1973) (establishes community caretaking doctrine for vehicle-related contacts)
- Floyd v. City of Crystal Springs, 749 So.2d 110 (Miss. 1999) (recognizes caretaking concept and its limited application in traffic contexts)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (reasonable suspicion standard for investigative stops)
- Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (vehicle stops are seizures; objective reasonableness governs)
- Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2006) (objective reasonableness and locality context for stop/authorities)
- Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1973) (see above; caretaking doctrine applied to vehicle stops and searches)