United States v. Mariano Mendoza
691 F.3d 954
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Mendoza and Tovar pleaded guilty conditionedly to possession with intent to distribute 500 g+ methamphetamine; appeal challenged suppression denial.
- Officer Swartz stopped a black Volvo after observing a suspicious rear window tag she believed unlikely to be Iowa, unreadable origin, and with large handwritten expiration numbers.
- Swartz requested driver’s license; driver had none; occupants were removed; another officer searched the vehicle yielding controlled substances.
- District court denied suppression, adopting Sanchez as controlling and crediting Swartz's credibility about the tag and her experience with counterfeit tags.
- Defendants argued the stop violated the Fourth Amendment and that Swartz’s credibility findings were clearly erroneous; they reserved post-plea appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there reasonable suspicion to stop? | Mendoza and Tovar: stop unsupported; tag appearance insufficient. | Swartz credibly believed tag could be forged based on appearance and experience. | Yes; stop supported by reasonable suspicion. |
| Were the district court’s credibility findings clearly erroneous? | Swartz’s credibility; inconsistent statements undermine finding. | Swartz’s testimony not internally inconsistent; credibility supported. | No clear error found; credibility upheld. |
| Is the stop distinguishable from Sanchez, and does that affect legality? | Sanchez controls; tag ambiguity should not justify stop. | Sanchez is distinguishable; Swartz’s specific facts justify suspicion. | Distinguishable but not fatal; stop still reasonable under circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanchez, 572 F.3d 475 (8th Cir. 2009) (reasonable-suspicion standard for traffic stops; recognizing need to assess at time of stop)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (U.S. 2007) (traffic stop constitutes seizure of occupants)
- Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (U.S. 2002) (reasonable suspicion must be based on the totality of circumstances)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996) (de novo review of legal conclusions; deferential to district court on facts)
- Edgerton, 438 F.3d 1043 (10th Cir. 2006) (distinguishes mere inability to read tag from inability to confirm authenticity)
- Wilson, 205 F.3d 720 (4th Cir. 2000) (en banc rejection of stop based solely on unreadable expiration date)
- Hollins, 685 F.3d 703 (8th Cir. 2012) (limits on stop duration and scope when credibility is questioned)