United States v. Salas-Garcia, 698 F.3d 1242

Salas-Garcia appeals after a conditional guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute over 2,500 g of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute over 500 g; he challenged the December 2, 2009 stop and ensuing search and statements as fruits of an unlawful seizure.
Police stopped Salas-Garcia and Castaneda during a suspected multi-vehicle drug transaction in the Presbyterian Hospital parking lot; Salas-Garcia was handcuffed temporarily and questioned.
A Miranda warning was given in Spanish; Salas-Garcia admitted drugs were in his truck and identified a kilo of cocaine near the center of the truck, leading to a search warrant and seizure of cocaine from the Dodge truck.
District court denied the motion to suppress; Salas-Garcia entered a conditional guilty plea before a magistrate, preserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.
Salas-Garcia later moved to withdraw the plea, arguing the district court had not accepted it and that he did not fully understand immigration consequences; the district court denied, and he was sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment and 4 years’ supervised release.
This court affirms the suppression ruling and dismisses the appeal from the denial of the motion to withdraw the plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the stop and handcuffing reasonable under Terry?	Salas-Garcia contends handcuffing exceeded scope of Terry stop and violated Fourth Amendment.	State agents acted reasonably given risk and drug-transaction context; handcuffs were brief and necessary for safety.	Handcuffing reasonable; detention did not become an arrest.
Did the statements and drugs rise from an unlawful seizure?	Suppression required as fruits of Fourth Amendment violation.	Stop was lawful; confined duration and circumstances justified investigatory detention.	Statements and drugs not suppressed; seizure was reasonable and not an unlawful arrest.
Did the magistrate’s acceptance of the guilty plea preclude Salas-Garcia’s absolute right to withdraw under Rule 11(d)?	District court may not have accepted plea; Salas-Garcia has absolute withdrawal right if not accepted.	Magistrate clearly accepted the plea for Rule 11 purposes; Byrum supports possible conditional acceptance but not here.	Plea was accepted for Rule 11 purposes; no absolute right to withdraw.
Does the appellate waiver bar review of the Rule 11 withdrawal issue under Hahn?	Issue falls outside waiver; not knowingly or voluntarily waived.	Waiver covers convictions/sentences and collateral attacks; withdrawal denial is within waiver scope.	appeal of withdrawal denial barred by Hahn; affirmed dismissal on waiver grounds.

United States v. Jarvi, 537 F.3d 1256 (10th Cir. 2008) (poisonous-tree exclusion standard)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963) (fruits of the poisonous-tree doctrine)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (stop-and-frisk reasonableness framework)
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (U.S. 2009) (police must harbor reasonable suspicion for pat-downs during stops)
Melendez-Garcia, 28 F.3d 1046 (10th Cir. 1994) (contrast on use of force; felony stop not justified)
Byrum, 567 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 2009) (provisional acceptance of plea pending PSR; Rule 11 implications)
Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (three-prong test for appellate waiver scope)
United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (U.S. 1985) (detention length reasonable for investigation)
Albert, 579 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2009) (drug evidence elevates danger or suspicion in detentions)
Gama-Bastidas, 142 F.3d 1233 (10th Cir. 1998) (drugs and weapons often co-occur in trafficking encounters)