United States v. Justin Ortiz
781 F.3d 221
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Ortiz bought two .50-caliber Beowulf rifles at SOG Armory; an employee (Hernandez) suspected a straw purchase and alerted ATF agents.
- ATF agents Phan and Milligan surveilled Ortiz after receiving license-plate/vehicle info and observed him load rifle bags into his vehicle and drive erratically.
- Agents stopped Ortiz at a gas station, drew weapons briefly, instructed him out of the car, and Milligan told Ortiz he was not under arrest; Ortiz initially claimed a birthday purchase then admitted buying the rifles for someone else.
- Ortiz was briefly handcuffed and later asked to ride in an agent’s car, where he answered more detailed questions and signed a written statement; no Miranda warnings were given.
- Agents seized the rifles from Ortiz’s vehicle and Ortiz pleaded guilty to conspiracy to make false statements, reserving appeal of the suppression ruling.
- The district court denied suppression; the Fifth Circuit reviewed the stop, the search, and the Miranda issues and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Ortiz’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agents had reasonable suspicion to stop Ortiz | Hernandez’s tip and observed conduct did not amount to reasonable suspicion | Tip from trained store employee corroborated by observed conduct (rifles loaded, erratic driving) created reasonable suspicion | Stop was supported by reasonable suspicion; lawful |
| Whether officers had probable cause to search vehicle / seize rifles (automobile exception) | No legal basis to search vehicle; suppression required | Ortiz’s oral and written admissions that he made a straw purchase supplied probable cause to search/seize | Probable cause existed based on Ortiz’s statements; seizure/search lawful |
| Whether Ortiz’s statements (oral at scene; oral & written in car) required Miranda warnings because he was in custody | Statements made during interrogation in the agent’s car were custodial; Miranda required and absence mandates suppression | Totality-of-circumstances shows Ortiz was not in custody (traffic-stop context, told not under arrest, shorter detainment, had keys/means to leave) | Majority: not custodial, no Miranda required; concurrence: car statements were custodial and should be suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Sup. Ct. 1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (ordinary traffic stop usually noncustodial)
- United States v. Martinez, 486 F.3d 855 (5th Cir. 2007) (factors for evaluating reliability and corroboration of informant tips)
- United States v. Powell, 732 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 2013) (Terry two-step; reasonable-suspicion analysis)
- United States v. Wright, 777 F.3d 769 (5th Cir. 2015) (noncustodial interview in vehicle where suspect was told he was free to leave)
- United States v. Cavazos, 668 F.3d 190 (5th Cir. 2012) (custodial finding where suspect was singled out, handcuffed, and questioned at home)
- Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465 (Sup. Ct. 1999) (automobile exception: vehicle search without warrant permitted where probable cause exists)