United States v. Gonzalez-GuytanUnited States v. Gonzalez-Guytan
TIMOTHY M. TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge.
Juan Gonzalez-Guytan was convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and conspiracy to commit the same. A law enforcement officer had stopped Gonzalez-Guytan after observing his failure to yield to an emergency vehicle while driving. Evidence uncovered during the traffic stop was presented at his trial. On appeal, he challenges the district court‘s denial of his motion to suppress evidence from the traffic stop and argues the officer who stopped his vehicle lacked probable cause.
After a careful review of the record, we conclude the district court properly denied the motion to suppress. Gonzalez-Guytan failed to yield and immediately pull over after an officer driving behind him activated his emergency lights and siren, as required by Oklahoma law. The traffic stop was valid based upon this observed traffic violation. Having jurisdiction under
I. Background
Based on a tip from a confidential informant, the Tulsa County Drug Task Force identified an apartment as a distribution point for the storage and sale of large quantities of methamphetamine and marijuana. The informant also told officers to expect a load of marijuana to be transported in a white van from the apartment. He identified one of the drug dealers as a Hispanic male.
During surveillance of the apartment, a blue pickup truck stopped at the apartment complex, and a Hispanic man entered the apartment. Later, two Hispanic men left the apartment, with one driving off in a white van and the other following in a blue pickup.
The surveillance team decided not to immediately stop the vehicles but followed them in hopes of gaining additional information. Due to heavy traffic and a concern they could lose the vehicles, the officers decided to stop the white van, which they believed contained contraband marijuana. An officer in a nearby patrol car
At that point, the blue pickup did not yield or immediately pull over. The officer followed for approximately one half-mile before he could drive around the blue pickup truck and stop the white van. The driver was taken into custody and a search of the van revealed five bales of marijuana (approximately 500 pounds), freezer bags, and scales.
A second officer, following behind the first officer, observed him activate his vehicle‘s lights and siren and noticed the blue pickup did not immediately pull over. After the blue pickup finally pulled over, the second officer stopped it for failure to yield to an emergency vehicle. Gonzalez-Guytan was driving the blue pickup truck. During the stop, he could not produce a driver‘s license and stated he was in the United States illegally. He was taken into custody and a visual inspection of the vehicle revealed several rolls of vacuum sealing plastic and a digital scale.
Gonzalez-Guytan was indicted on one count of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and one count of conspiracy to commit the same. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence and statements obtained as a result of the traffic stop, arguing the stop was not supported by probable cause or a reasonable articulable suspicion that a traffic violation had occurred. A magistrate judge held a hearing on the motion to suppress and issued a report and recommendation, recommending the motion be denied. After considering Gonzalez-Guytan‘s objections, the district court adopted the report and recommendation.
A jury found Gonzalez-Guytan guilty on both counts and he was sentenced to 78 months’ imprisonment. He timely appealed.
II. Discussion
Gonzalez-Guytan argues the officer who stopped his vehicle lacked probable cause. We disagree. The traffic stop was valid because the officer observed Gonzalez-Guytan‘s failure to yield to an emergency vehicle that had activated its emergency lights and siren, as required by Oklahoma law.
“When reviewing a district court‘s denial of a motion to suppress, we accept the district court‘s factual findings unless clearly erroneous and consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the government.” United States v. Harris, 369 F.3d 1157, 1165 (10th Cir.2004). “However, the ultimate determination of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is a question of law we review de novo.” Id.
We assess the legality of a traffic stop under the principles established in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). United States v. Polly, 630 F.3d 991, 997 (10th Cir.2011). Generally, we conduct two inquiries: (1) whether the traffic stop “was justified at its inception,” and (2) whether “the resulting detention was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the stop in the first place.” Id. (quotations omitted). Gonzalez-Guytan only challenges the legality of the traffic stop, and thus we must examine whether the stop was justified at its inception.
“A traffic stop is justified at its inception if an officer has (1) probable cause to
Oklahoma law provides:
Upon the immediate approach of ... a police vehicle properly and lawfully making use of an audible signal or red flashing lights, the driver of every other vehicle shall yield the right-of-way and shall immediately drive to a position parallel to, and as close as possible to, the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway clear of any intersection and shall stop and remain in such position until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, except when otherwise directed by a police officer.
Gonzalez-Guytan claims his traffic stop was unjustified and unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the officer lacked probable cause to stop him based on a violation of
We are unpersuaded. Gonzalez-Guytan ignores the testimony from the suppression hearing of two other officers involved in the pursuit. These two officers—one who stopped the white van and the other who stopped Gonzalez-Guytan—both testified Gonzalez-Guytan did not immediately pull over and traveled for approximately one half-mile after the officer activated his vehicle‘s emergency lights and siren before stopping.
The magistrate judge, in the report and recommendation, considered the evidence from the officers’ reports and their testimony at the suppression hearing. While not making an explicit finding, the magis
The officer‘s report that Gonzalez-Guytan cites—stating he did not pull over for “several moments“—does not undermine the magistrate judge‘s factual finding. Even if it may be unclear what amount of time or distance corresponds to “several moments,” it is clear from the officers’ testimony that Gonzalez-Guytan failed to yield and immediately pull over in those several moments. In addition, the two cars initially between the pursuing officer and Gonzalez-Guytan immediately pulled over upon the officer‘s activation of his vehicle‘s lights and siren. This both highlights Gonzalez-Guytan‘s failure to do so as he continued driving for one half-mile and further supports the factual finding that he did not immediately yield and pull over.
Gonzalez-Guytan failed to immediately yield and pull over after the officer activated his vehicle‘s emergency lights and siren—a violation of Oklahoma law.1 He has made no argument this factual finding is clearly erroneous. An officer observed this traffic violation and initiated a valid traffic stop. See Winder, 557 F.3d at 1135 (“Our precedents leave no room to doubt the validity of a traffic stop based on an observed traffic violation.“). Therefore, the district court did not err when it denied Gonzalez-Guytan‘s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the traffic stop.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM Gonzalez-Guytan‘s conviction.