United States v. Juan Gonzalez-Ruiz
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12867
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- At ~3 a.m., Fitchburg officers stopped Juan M. Gonzalez‑Ruiz for driving with a suspended license; dashcam and lapel recordings captured the encounter.
- After issuing a ticket, Sgt. Laha asked Gonzalez‑Ruiz for consent to search the car; Gonzalez‑Ruiz said “you can, you can … yeah,” later said “I guess” in response to the officer’s renewed request, and nodded/raised a hand. Officers began searching and found two handguns under the driver’s seat.
- Gonzalez‑Ruiz moved to suppress the guns, arguing his “I guess” reply was not consent but was directed to a phone call with his partner (who testified she asked whether to pick him up).
- A magistrate and the district court credited the officers’ testimony and the recordings, found consent was given, and denied suppression; Gonzalez‑Ruiz pleaded guilty conditionally to preserve the suppression issue on appeal.
- At sentencing the government sought ACCA enhancement based on four prior convictions; the district court declined to apply the ACCA residual clause and imposed 37 months. The government cross‑appealed but later moved to dismiss that cross‑appeal after the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gonzalez‑Ruiz consented to the warrantless vehicle search | “I guess” was not consent; it answered his caller’s question about pickup | Officers: verbal response plus nod/hand wave and silence when search began manifested consent | Consent found; district court’s factual findings not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the ACCA residual clause made Gonzalez‑Ruiz’s conspiracy conviction a violent felony | N/A on appeal (defendant disputed ACCA predicate at sentencing) | Government argued conspiracy to commit armed robbery qualified under ACCA residual clause | Cross‑appeal dismissed after Johnson invalidated residual clause; no ACCA enhancement applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2552 (2015) (residual clause of ACCA is unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Miller, 721 F.3d 435 (7th Cir. 2013) (sawed‑off shotgun possession not an ACCA violent felony)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (framework for identifying ACCA violent felonies under residual clause)
- United States v. Price, 54 F.3d 342 (7th Cir. 1995) (silence or failure to object when search begins can confirm consent)
- Fernandez v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1126 (2014) (consent is a Fourth Amendment exception to the warrant requirement)
- United States v. Jackson, 598 F.3d 340 (7th Cir. 2010) (discussing consent and warrant requirements)
- United States v. Williams, 209 F.3d 940 (7th Cir. 2000) (describing deference to district court credibility determinations)