United States v. Manzo, 4:11-cr-01831

Defendants Eva Marie Manzo and Alberto Manzo Zapien are charged in Tucson with conspiring to possess and later possessing 5.68 kg of methamphetamine for distribution (Counts 1–2).
April 19, 2011, DEA observed a group acting suspiciously at Wal-Mart in Tucson; agents requested a stop of a white 1997 Toyota Avalon for a stop-lamp violation.
Arizona traffic stop occurred; officers observed one stop lamp not functioning while two others functioned; vehicle cited for stop-lamp issue.
Officers approached driver Alberto Manzo and passenger Eva Marie Manzo; neither officer informed them of the stop’s reason; both exited the vehicle.
A canine alerted to contraband; search of the vehicle followed without a 1302-Consent to Search form; defendants’ consent is disputed as involuntary and tainted by an illegal seizure.
Magistrate Judge recommended granting both Defendant Manzo’s Motion To Suppress Statements and Motion To Suppress Evidence, concluding the stop was illegal and any consent invalid; ultimately the District Court denied/ or granted? (text indicates recommendation for grant).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the stop was a Fourth Amendment seizure based on a mistaken belief of the law	Manzo	Manzo	Stop invalid; seizure illegal and violates Fourth Amendment
Whether consent to search was valid given the allegedly illegal seizure and lack of clear consent	Manzo	Manzo	Consent invalid; not attenuated from illegal seizure and not voluntary
Whether statements and evidence should be suppressed as fruits of an unlawful stop and coerced consent	Manzo	Manzo	Statements and evidence suppressed; violation of Fourth Amendment

United States v. Twilley, 222 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2000) (mistaken belief of law invalidates stop)
Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626 (1983) (consent obtained after unlawful arrest requires attenuation)
Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968) (consent to search not valid if coerced by claim of authority)