United States v. Ramon Ortiz
17-1740
| 3rd Cir. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- On January 13, 2016, Officer John Leible stopped Ramon Ortiz after observing Ortiz fail to stop at a stop sign in a Philadelphia neighborhood.
- Ortiz exited his vehicle and began walking across the street; Officer Leible ordered him back into the car. Ortiz complied but left the driver’s door open.
- During the stop Ortiz acted nervously and fidgety, repeatedly reaching toward his waistband, pockets, and the car’s center console—areas the officer knew people commonly hide weapons. Ortiz also repeatedly put his left leg outside the car against instructions.
- Officer Leible performed a protective frisk of Ortiz (no weapons found) and then searched the passenger compartment for weapons. While frisking the rear driver’s side he smelled marijuana and found a bag under the driver’s seat containing marijuana and two firearms.
- Ortiz was arrested and charged with simple possession of marijuana and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The District Court denied Ortiz’s motion to suppress; Ortiz appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop was lawful | Stop was insufficient foundation for subsequent search | Stop was valid because Ortiz failed to stop at a stop sign | Stop was lawful under Whren; officer witnessed the traffic violation |
| Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to frisk Ortiz and his vehicle | Ortiz's movements did not supply reasonable suspicion to search the vehicle | Officer had particularized, objective basis from Ortiz's conduct to frisk for weapons | Court held officer had reasonable suspicion to justify a protective frisk of person and vehicle |
| Whether search of passenger compartment was permissible scope | Search exceeded permissible scope because no specific threat existed | Search limited to areas where a weapon may be placed was justified to prevent access to weapons | Search of areas where weapons could be hidden was permissible under Michigan v. Long |
| Whether evidence seized should be suppressed | Evidence should be suppressed as product of unlawful search | Evidence admissible because search was justified and lawful | Court affirmed denial of suppression; evidence admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (any traffic code violation justifies a stop)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (officer may frisk based on specific and articulable facts of danger)
- Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983) (protective search of passenger compartment limited to areas where weapon may be hidden)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (reasonable-suspicion inquiry requires consideration of the whole picture)
- United States v. Navedo, 694 F.3d 463 (3d Cir. 2012) (standard of review for suppression rulings: plenary on law, clear error on facts)
- United States v. Mosley, 454 F.3d 249 (3d Cir. 2006) (Whren establishes bright-line rule for traffic-stop legitimacy)