United States v. Hector Magallon-Lopez
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5891
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- DEA task force intercepted wiretap communications predicting Juan Sanchez would transport methamphetamine from Yakima Valley (WA) to Minneapolis on Sept. 27–28 in a green/black/white passenger car with Washington plates, accompanied by a companion nicknamed "Chaparro" with a death-related tattoo.
- Cell-site data predicted the vehicle would pass through Bozeman, Montana between ~3:00–4:00 a.m.; officers surveilled I-90 near Bozeman.
- Officers observed a green Volkswagen Passat with Washington plates matching occupancy (two Hispanic men), confirmed registration to Hector (Hector Magallon‑Lopez) from Toppenish (Yakima Valley), and effectuated a traffic stop. The officer misstated the reason for the stop (claimed a lane‑change signal violation).
- During the stop officers verified the passenger was Juan Sanchez and observed a tattoo on Magallon‑Lopez matching the wiretap description; both men said they were traveling to Minnesota for work.
- A drug‑detection dog alerted to the vehicle; officers seized and towed the car, obtained a search warrant, and discovered ~2 pounds of methamphetamine hidden under the trunk. Magallon‑Lopez moved to suppress; the district court denied the motion and he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Magallon‑Lopez's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers lawfully stopped the vehicle under the Fourth Amendment | Stop unlawful because officer lied about observing a traffic violation and the stated reason lacked reasonable suspicion | Stop lawful because objective facts known to officers provided reasonable suspicion to stop this particular vehicle | Stop lawful: objective reasonable‑suspicion analysis controls; officer’s lie about the stated reason does not invalidate the stop |
| Whether officers had probable cause to seize the vehicle | Seizure invalid because canine alert certification lapsed and stop was tainted by officer’s lie | Probable cause existed from wiretap corroboration and facts observed during the stop (identity of passenger, tattoo, travel destination), independent of the dog | Probable cause existed to seize the car based on corroborated wiretap information and observations during the stop; dog alert need not be reached |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (objective reasonable‑suspicion standard for investigatory stops)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (pretextual stops permissible; objective basis controls Fourth Amendment analysis)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (objective facts, not officer’s stated reason, determine lawfulness of arrest)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable‑cause “fair probability” standard for searches/seizures)
- Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir.) (informational reliability of non‑anonymous sources)
- Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (reliability of canine alerts)