893 F.3d 744
10th Cir.2018Background
- Pilot Bruce M. Latorre flew a private plane from California to Buffalo, NY, stayed one night, and began rapid return flights while intermittently appearing on radar without an active transponder.
- Illinois state trooper Weidler tracked the aircraft, learned its tail number and that it was registered to Latorre, and learned Latorre had prior drug-related arrests; AMOC had Latorre’s aircraft on an alert/watch list.
- Homeland Security agents and Wyoming officers coordinated; Wyoming Officer Mathson (plainclothes) met Latorre at Evanston WY airport, obtained and retained his pilot’s license/registration, and Agent Lowry asked to search the plane. Latorre said, “Yeah, I don’t mind.”
- Mathson searched the aircraft and found $519,935 in vacuum-sealed cash; Latorre was arrested, read Miranda later, and ultimately pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the suppression denial.
- District court denied suppression, finding (1) Weidler had reasonable suspicion; (2) that suspicion imputed to Mathson under the collective-knowledge doctrine; and (3) Latorre voluntarily consented to the search. This Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Latorre's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Mathson’s detention lawful (reasonable suspicion)? | Weidler’s observations were innocent or equivocal; factors relied on insufficient. | Weidler had reasonable suspicion based on itinerary, transponder off, and criminal history; investigator could stop. | Held: Totality (short trip, transponder off, prior record/AMOC alerts) gave reasonable suspicion; detention lawful. |
| May Weidler’s suspicion be imputed to Mathson (collective knowledge)? | Attenuation: multiple relays (four links) make imputing improper; Mathson lacked firsthand basis. | Vertical collective-knowledge permits imputation when officers function as a team and information is transmitted. | Held: Imputed—vertical collective-knowledge applies across agencies/jurisdictions here; communication confirmed team functioning. |
| Was the warrantless search of the aircraft valid (consent)? | Consent involuntary: documents retained, weapon displayed, Miranda not read, not told right to refuse. | Consent was express, given in public lobby, no threats/promises, agents in plain clothes, not handcuffed; informed he could leave. | Held: Consent voluntary under Schneckloth totality; warrantless search lawful. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality-of-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (reasonable suspicion requires less than probable cause; travel patterns can be suspicious)
- Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (1985) (officers may rely on information from other jurisdictions to act promptly)
- Rodriguez-Rodriguez v. United States, 550 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2008) (vertical collective-knowledge doctrine and imputing probable cause across communications)
- Pickel v. United States, 863 F.3d 1240 (10th Cir. 2017) (collective knowledge can impute suspicion/probable cause to acting officer)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (consent validity judged by totality of circumstances)
- Saulsberry v. United States, 878 F.3d 946 (10th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Jones v. United States, 701 F.3d 1300 (10th Cir. 2012) (two-part test for consent: express/implied and voluntariness)