United States v. Salas
756 F.3d 1196
10th Cir.2014Background
- Deputies stopped Michael Salas on I-40 after Deputy Gragg observed a Ford Taurus cross the right "fog line"; Gragg testified the vehicle crossed the fog line twice and later followed it for several minutes before stopping it.
- After issuing a warning for failure to stay in lane, Gragg asked follow-up questions; Salas answered, said he was tired, and (on video) consented when Gragg asked to search the vehicle.
- The trunk search revealed roughly 20 pounds of methamphetamine in a suitcase; Salas was charged with possession with intent to distribute.
- Salas moved to suppress, arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion under Okla. Stat. § 11-309 and that any consent was tainted; the district court denied the motion and adopted the magistrate judge’s finding of consent.
- Salas pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 151 months; at sentencing he sought (1) a one-level USSG § 3E1.1(b) reduction for acceptance of responsibility (which the government declined to move for), and (2) a § 3B1.2 minor/minimal participant adjustment—both were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Salas' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of initial stop (fog-line violation) | Stop lacked reasonable suspicion; video doesn’t show two violations and wind/curve could explain drift | Gragg observed fog-line crossings and surrounding facts support suspicion; winds/curve not sufficient to explain driving halfway over line | Stop lawful: reasonable suspicion existed (even one clear crossing would suffice given circumstances) |
| Voluntariness / taint of consent to search | Consent was tainted by the stop and no meaningful break occurred | Stop was lawful; consent was voluntary and given after the warning was completed | Consent voluntary; search lawful under Fourth Amendment |
| USSG § 3E1.1(b) one-level reduction | Salas timely intended to plead guilty and so was entitled to the reduction | Government had begun trial preparations after suppression motion; withholding motion was rational to conserve resources | Denial affirmed: government’s refusal rational and not unconstitutionally motivated given trial preparations |
| USSG § 3B1.2 minor/minimal participant | Salas was a courier and less culpable, warranting a role reduction | Salas failed to prove other participants or that he was substantially less culpable | Denial affirmed: district court did not clearly err in finding no minor/minimal participant adjustment |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fox, 600 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Harmon, 742 F.3d 451 (10th Cir. 2014) (single fog-line violation can support reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Alvarado, 430 F.3d 1305 (10th Cir. 2005) (fog-line crossing supports stop absent adverse conditions)
- United States v. Cline, 349 F.3d 1276 (10th Cir. 2003) (traffic violations and reasonable suspicion principles)
- United States v. Ozbirn, 189 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 1999) (reasonable suspicion for traffic stops)
- United States v. Kitchell, 653 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2011) (deference to district court credibility findings on suppression)
- United States v. Vazquez, 555 F.3d 923 (10th Cir. 2009) (vehicle type relevant to wind/handling assessment)
- United States v. Hunnicutt, 135 F.3d 1345 (10th Cir. 1998) (interpretation of lane statute encompassing center and shoulder line crossings)
- United States v. Martinez, 512 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 2008) (standards for role adjustments and review)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (attenuation test for consent after illegal stop)