United States v. Flores
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14570
7th Cir.2015Background
- Hernandez Flores was stopped on an Illinois highway for an allegedly obstructed rear license plate due to a frame that covered part of the plate.
- Officer McVicker read the plate because he approached closely and concluded the frame might violate 625 ILCS 5/3-413(b).
- The plate-display statute requires plates to be visible and legible; the stop occurred under the belief of a violation, enabling a search and drug discovery.
- A canine sniff followed the stop, and a hidden compartment contained over five kilograms of heroin; Hernandez Flores confessed after Miranda warnings.
- Hernandez Flores moved to suppress the heroin and his statements, arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion because the frame did not obstruct the plate.
- The district court denied suppression; Hernandez Flores entered a conditional guilty plea reserving appeal on the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the frame violate the plate-display statute? | Hernandez Flores: frame does not violate statute. | McVicker reasonably believed it violated the statute. | Frame did not violate the statute. |
| Was the stop supported by reasonable suspicion? | Stop based on unreasonable mistake of law; no obstruction. | Stop justified by reasonable belief of violation. | Stop lacked reasonable suspicion; suppression required. |
| What is the proper standard of review for the marshaled argument post-Heien? | De novo review appropriate for reasonable-suspicion issue. | Plain-error review applies since not argued below. | De novo review applied. |
| Does Heien’s rule apply to label an unreasonable mistake of law as invalid? | Officer’s belief was unreasonable under Heien. | Not addressed separately; focuses on reasonableness of belief. | Unreasonable mistaken law invalidates the stop. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McDonald, 453 F.3d 958 (7th Cir. 2006) (reasonable but erroneous interpretation of state law can invalidate a stop)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 540 (U.S. 2014) (unreasonable mistake of law invalidates seizure)
- Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1687 (U.S. 2014) (police need at least reasonable suspicion for a stop)
- United States v. Bentley, 795 F.3d 630 (7th Cir. 2015) (stop for a technical moving violation can be lawful when easily avoidable)
- United States v. Billups, 536 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2008) (new twist on preserved argument reviewed de novo)
- People v. Gaytan, 32 N.E.3d 641 (Ill. 2015) (common plate frames generally do not violate the statute)
- People v. Miller, 183 Ill.Dec. 158, 611 N.E.2d 11 (1993) (plate must be clearly visible)
- People v. Bradi, 63 Ill.Dec. 363, 437 N.E.2d 1285 (1982) (plate must be legible)