United States v. Aldo Gastelum
11 F.4th 898
8th Cir.2021Background
- Trooper Pettit stopped Aldo Gastelum for an unsafe lane change; initial encounter was conversational and lasted about 15 minutes.
- Pettit reviewed Gastelum’s one-way, one-day rental from Houston to Chicago (expensive and temporally inconsistent with Gastelum’s stated travel plans) and found the travel story suspicious.
- After printing a warning, Pettit asked about luggage and told Gastelum to “come on out… pop that trunk,” then—before the trunk was opened—asked three times for permission to check the trunk; Gastelum gave affirmative responses and opened the trunk.
- Pettit opened a duffel in the trunk and discovered over 15 kilograms of a cocaine mixture; Gastelum was handcuffed and indicted for possession with intent to distribute.
- Gastelum moved to suppress, arguing the stop was unlawfully extended and the trunk search was nonconsensual; the district court denied the motion, Gastelum conditionally pled guilty, and he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gastelum) | Defendant's Argument (Government/Trooper) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop was unreasonably extended after issuance of the warning | Pettit lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to prolong the stop once the warning was issued | Pettit’s experience plus contradictions between rental agreement and travel story, implausible trip timing/cost, evasive answers, and military-themed props gave rising suspicion | Affirmed: totality of circumstances supplied reasonable suspicion to extend the stop |
| Whether Gastelum voluntarily consented to the trunk search | The initial instruction to “pop that trunk” was an authoritative command; any later questions were mere acquiescence, not voluntary consent | Pettit quickly retracted any directive, asked permission three times, received affirmative answers in a friendly, noncoercive setting; a reasonable officer would believe consent was given | Affirmed: district court did not clearly err — consent was voluntary (Judge Kelly dissented, would reverse) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (controls extension-of-stop rule)
- Arizona v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (totality-of-circumstances for reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (innocent travel can contribute to reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Pacheco, 996 F.3d 508 (8th Cir. standard on rental inconsistencies and suppression review)
- United States v. Magallon, 984 F.3d 1263 (reasonable suspicion may grow during a stop; government burden on consent)
- United States v. Carr, 895 F.3d 1083 (factors for voluntariness of consent)
- United States v. Garcia-Garcia, 957 F.3d 887 (consent must be product of essentially free and unconstrained choice)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (consent coerced by assertion of lawful authority is invalid)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntariness test for consent; no per se requirement to advise right to refuse)
- Florida v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (officer need not inform suspect of right to refuse consent)