United States v. Julio Alicea Aponte
662 F. App'x 780
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Trooper Christen stopped to render motorist assistance to a disabled SUV on I-10; Aponte was the driver and two passengers were present. The stop began consensually.
- Christen observed Aponte nervous (trembling, vomiting) and asked for identification; he asked Aponte to sit in the patrol car and retained Aponte’s driver’s license temporarily.
- Christen ran NCIC and a longer BLOC check; BLOC later showed the passengers had prior heroin-trafficking arrests.
- Christen obtained consent to search the SUV from Aponte and both passengers; a drug-detection dog alerted and luggage with heroin was found.
- Aponte moved to suppress, arguing the encounter became an investigatory detention without reasonable suspicion and thus his consent was invalid; the district court denied the motion.
- On appeal (after remand for further factual findings), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the encounter remained consensual and thus no Fourth Amendment seizure occurred before consent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Aponte was "seized" before he consented to search | Retention of license and being asked to sit in patrol car transformed consensual encounter into a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion | The encounter remained consensual; Trooper used conversational tone, did not display force, and Aponte could have declined or waited in disabled SUV | No seizure occurred before consent; circumstances more like De La Rosa than Thompson |
| If a seizure occurred, whether Trooper had reasonable suspicion | Argued no particularized, articulable suspicion justified detention | Trooper cites suspicious travel story, extreme nervousness (vomiting), and passenger records to justify suspicion | Court did not reach this alternative because it found no seizure; district court’s reasonable-suspicion finding was unnecessary but also supported on record |
| Whether consent to search was voluntary and therefore valid | Consent was tainted by unlawful detention, so invalid | Consent was voluntary; license returned before consent and passengers also consented | Consent held valid because no unlawful detention; also passengers’ consent independently authorized search |
| Whether post-discovery questioning violated Miranda/Seibert | Aponte argued two-step interrogation or failure to Mirandize rendered statements inadmissible | Trooper asked a single safety question about unknown substance; public-safety exception applies; no deliberate two-step Seibert strategy | No Miranda/Seibert violation; question was for officer safety, not calculated interrogation |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jordan, 635 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2011) (factors for distinguishing consensual encounters from seizures)
- United States v. De La Rosa, 922 F.2d 675 (11th Cir. 1991) (temporary retention of license did not cause seizure where person could remain home/vehicle)
- United States v. Thompson, 712 F.2d 1356 (11th Cir. 1983) (retention of license during questioning can constitute seizure)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (consensual encounters permissible so long as police do not convey that compliance is required)
- United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002) (objective test: whether a reasonable person would feel free to terminate encounter)
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) (invalidates deliberate two-step interrogation that undermines Miranda)
- United States v. Street, 472 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2006) (applies Seibert and describes required curative steps)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (reasonable suspicion standard for brief investigatory stops)