United States v. Eduardo Guerrero
683 F. App'x 267
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Guerrero pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute/possess methamphetamine (50g+ or 500g+ mixture) but reserved right to appeal denial of suppression motion.
- Trooper Stephenson stopped a truck driven by Raul Tuda; Tuda and a passenger were unlicensed drivers in a vehicle not registered to them and displayed nervousness.
- Drivers gave inconsistent destination answers; the vehicle had visible modifications (rerouted exhaust, new fuel filter on a fuel tank).
- After a traffic citation, officers continued detention based on observed factors and conducted a search following Tuda’s signed consent (Spanish-language form).
- A canine sniff and discovery of drugs hidden in the fuel tank followed; Guerrero moved to suppress evidence claiming unreasonable detention, involuntary/invalid consent, and improper canine use.
Issues
| Issue | Guerrero's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether continued detention after citation lacked reasonable suspicion | No reasonable suspicion justified prolonging detention | Nervousness, inconsistent answers, unlicensed/unregistered status, and vehicle modifications gave reasonable suspicion | Court: Continued detention was supported by reasonable suspicion |
| Whether Tuda’s consent to search was voluntary | Language barrier, no verbal consent on record, form not shown/read, no Miranda warning — consent involuntary | Trooper polite, provided Spanish written consent form including refusal right, Tuda cooperative and not impaired | Court: Consent was voluntary (factual finding not clearly erroneous) |
| Whether consent was tainted by an illegal detention (i.e., not independent) | Consent not an independent free act if detention illegal | Detention was lawful, so consent need not be tested as tainted by illegality | Court: Because detention lawful, no need to find consent independent; upheld search |
| Whether use of a canine sniff violated Rodriguez by prolonging stop without reasonable suspicion | Rodriguez bars extending a stop for a dog sniff absent reasonable suspicion | Rodriguez inapplicable because reasonable suspicion existed and Tuda consented to search | Court: Rodriguez does not apply; canine search was permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341 (5th Cir.) (factors supporting continued detention)
- United States v. Fishel, 467 F.3d 855 (5th Cir.) (continued-detention analysis)
- United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500 (5th Cir.) (en banc) (reasonable-suspicion guidance)
- United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420 (5th Cir.) (voluntariness of consent reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Arias-Robles, 477 F.3d 245 (5th Cir.) (no Miranda requirement for simple consent request)
- United States v. Khanalizadeh, 493 F.3d 479 (5th Cir.) (consent taint inquiry when detention unlawful)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (dog-sniff prolongation rule)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda rights principles)