United States v. Susana Guevara
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20208
8th Cir.2013Background
- Guevara was stopped by a Nebraska state trooper on I-80 for allegedly impeding traffic in a left lane driving a 1996 Jeep Cherokee.
- The trooper questioned Guevara’s destination and origin; he noted an open title and suspected third-party loan of the vehicle, which he associated with smuggling risk.
- Guevara consented to a search of the Jeep after being informed she could decline; the passenger (Guevara’s sister) limited her consent to her luggage.
- Troopers searched the cabin and luggage, then proceeded to the engine compartment after noticing signs of tampering and a concealed area in the air intake manifold.
- Upon drilling the compartment, they found cardboard/plastic, indicating a hidden compartment; officers detained the women and towed the car for a more thorough inspection.
- Methamphetamine was later discovered inside the hidden compartment at a garage; Guevara and sister were detained, and Guevara made incriminating statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the traffic stop supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause? | Guevara argues the stop was unlawful due to lack of valid reasonable suspicion. | Guevara contends the trooper’s belief the stop was warranted was improper or misapplied statutes. | The stop was supported by reasonable suspicion; seizure valid. |
| Did Guevara have standing to challenge the search of the vehicle? | Guevara contends she lacked standing to challenge the search. | Guevara asserts she had a privacy interest in the vehicle and could challenge the search. | Assumed standing for purposes of the opinion. |
| Was Guevara's consent to search voluntary given the surrounding detention? | Guevara argues detention prevented an effective withdrawal of consent, rendering consent invalid. | Guevara had control to withdraw or limit consent, but did not timely do so; authorities may rely on consent. | Consent was voluntary; withdrawal was not timely or clearly communicated. |
| Did the troopers have probable cause to conduct the destructive search of the engine after discovering the hidden compartment? | Guevara challenges whether probable cause existed to destroy engine components. | The totality of circumstances supported probable cause to search the compartment for drugs. | Probable cause existed; destructive search authorized after discovery. |
| Was Guevara lawfully arrested based on probable cause? | Guevara argues there was no probable cause to arrest prior to or during the stop. | There was probable cause based on totality of circumstances after discovering the hidden compartment. | There was probable cause; removal and arrest were lawful. |
Key Cases Cited
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (U.S. 2004) (officer's subjective reasons for arrest are irrelevant to probable cause)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (objective reasonable suspicion governs traffic stops)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996) (totality of the circumstances governs probable cause and reasonable suspicion)
- Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050 (S. Ct. 2013) (probable cause based on totality of circumstances and expertise of officers)
- United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891 (U.S. 1975) (reasonable suspicion and probable cause in searches and seizures)
- United States v. Aquino, 674 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2012) (permissible touching can create reasonable belief about contents of bulge)
- United States v. Tovar-Valdivia, 193 F.3d 1025 (8th Cir. 1999) (bulges require additional information beyond exterior observation)