United States v. Guijon-Ortiz
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22661
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Guijon-Ortiz was a back-seat passenger in a pickup stopped for speeding and lane use; he handed a fraudulent LPR card (Daniel Gaitan) to the officer, with an A-number not matching the name.
- The officer contacted ICE to verify the LPR card; ICE indicated a mismatch between the A-number and the Gaitan name.
- The officer detained the occupants and transported Guijon-Ortiz to an ICE office after confirming no warrants, while other occupants were released.
- At ICE, Guijon-Ortiz admitted to using the LPR card and later provided fingerprints; ICE confirmed his true identity as Saul Guijon-Ortiz and noted prior deportation sanctions.
- The suppression motion sought to exclude evidence obtained during the stop and ICE processing; the district court denied suppression, and Guijon-Ortiz pled guilty on appeal while preserving the suppression ruling for review.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the ICE verification call did not unreasonably prolong the stop and that the officer diligently pursued the stop’s justification under the totality of circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the stop unreasonably prolonged by calling ICE? | Guijon-Ortiz argues the ICE call extended the stop beyond its justification. | Guijon-Ortiz contends the ICE check was improper for lack of reasonable suspicion/consent. | No; the call was brief and the officer diligently pursued the stop’s justification. |
| Did the officer diligently pursue the stop’s justification under Terry once ICE was contacted? | The prolonged seizure shows a lack of diligence in pursuing the stop’s purpose. | Diligence was maintained; the stop remained focused on driver impairment. | Yes; the officer diligently pursued the stop’s justification under the totality of circumstances. |
| Does the district court’s reliance on the booking exception for the fingerprints/pre-Miranda statements remain valid? | Not expressly challenged beyond suppression of non-criminal evidence. | Booking exception could render the evidence admissible. | Court did not resolve anew; upheld admission on broader reasoning that the stop remained permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Digiovanni, 650 F.3d 498 (4th Cir. 2011) (diligent pursuit of stop’s justification key to reasonableness)
- United States v. Mason, 628 F.3d 123 (4th Cir. 2010) (brief, unrelated questioning may be permissible if stop remains prompt and efficient)
- United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210 (4th Cir. 2008) (minimal delay allowed when officer’s inexperience caused brief extended stop)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) (limits on unrelated inquiries during stops; must not prolong detention)
- United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985) (framework for evaluating termination, scope, and duration of investigative stops)
- United States v. Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005) (immigration status questioning during a lawful seizure does not always require separate justification)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (consent and voluntariness analysis during repeated police encounters)
- United States v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) (unrelated questioning may extend detention if it prolongs the stop)