United States v. Victor Orozco, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9659

Background

Nevada troopers stopped Victor Orozco’s commercial tractor-trailer after receiving an informant tip that the truck "may possibly" be carrying narcotics; troopers positioned themselves to intercept the truck and pulled it over when it arrived.
Troopers conducted an NAS Level III paperwork inspection (a valid administrative commercial-vehicle inspection), but discovered violations and issued no citation; they asked for and obtained consent to search.
A drug-detection dog (previously staged nearby) alerted; officers found ~26 lbs methamphetamine and ~6 lbs heroin in the sleeper compartment.
Orozco moved to suppress, arguing the NAS inspection was a pretext for a criminal investigation; the district court denied suppression, accepting that the stop had a "dual motive."
On appeal the government waived any claim of reasonable suspicion; the Ninth Circuit assumed none existed and evaluated whether the stop was permissible under the administrative-search doctrine or was an impermissible pretext.
The Ninth Circuit reversed: objective evidence showed the stop would not have occurred but for the drug tip, so the administrative inspection was a pretext and the subsequent consent search (and evidence) were fruit of an unlawful stop.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (USA)	Defendant's Argument (Orozco)	Held
Whether a suspicionless NAS Level III stop is valid under Nevada’s administrative inspection scheme	The stop was conducted pursuant to a facially valid administrative program (CVSP/NAS); dual motives are permissible so long as the administrative scheme is legitimate	The stop was a pretext for a criminal investigation based on an informant tip; therefore it violated the Fourth Amendment and evidence must be suppressed	Reversed: stop was pretextual and not justified by the administrative-search doctrine because objective evidence showed it occurred only due to the drug tip
Whether an officer’s subjective investigatory motive precludes reliance on an administrative-search exception	Reliance on a valid administrative program relieves the need to probe officer’s subjective motive when programmatic purpose is legitimate	Where there is objective evidence of pretext, the court must inquire into purpose and may find the stop unlawful	Court held that when objective evidence of pretext exists, inquiry into purpose is required; the subjective motive defeated reliance on the administrative exception
Admissibility of consent and evidence found after a detention that began as a pretextual administrative stop	The consent search and dog alert were lawful follow-ups to a valid administrative inspection	Consent and subsequent discovery were fruits of an unlawful seizure and must be suppressed	Court held the consent search and seized drugs were fruit of the unlawful, pretextual stop and thus inadmissible

Key Cases Cited

Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) (stops of vehicles for license/registration checks require neutral criteria; unbridled officer discretion invalid)
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (inventory/search procedures valid when not a pretext and conducted under standardized criteria)
New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987) (warrantless administrative inspections permissible where statute serves a proper regulatory purpose and is not a pretext)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (subjective officer intent ordinarily irrelevant to Fourth Amendment stop analysis, but courts disfavor pretextual uses of valid procedures)
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000) (programmatic purpose inquiry required; suspicionless stops for general crime control invalid)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (objective justification governs stops; special-needs/administrative exceptions are narrowly cabined)
United States v. Delgado, 545 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2008) (upholding suspicionless commercial-vehicle inspections under appropriate regulatory context)
United States v. McCarty, 648 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 2011) (administrative-search analysis; search may remain lawful if actions would have been same regardless of subjective motive)
United States v. Maestas, 2 F.3d 1485 (10th Cir. 1993) (test for pretext: would officer have made the stop absent impermissible purpose?)
United States v. Hellman, 556 F.2d 442 (9th Cir. 1977) (admission of investigatory motive supports finding of unconstitutional pretext)