State Of Oklahoma v Angel Chavez

S-2009-235

Filed: Dec. 14, 2009

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Angel Chavez

Summary

Angel Chavez appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Cocaine). Conviction and sentence were dismissed because the trial court found that the police officer did not have enough reason to keep Chavez detained after the traffic stop. The court decided that any consent Chavez gave to search his truck was not given freely since he didn't feel he could leave. The State of Oklahoma disagreed with this decision but the appeals court agreed with the trial court and upheld its ruling. No one dissented.

Decision

The ruling of the District Court granting the motion to suppress is AFFIRMED and the case is REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2008), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there reasonable articulable suspicion to extend Appellee's detention beyond the traffic stop?
• Did Appellee freely and voluntarily give consent to the search of his truck and trailer?

Findings

• the court did not err in finding the officer did not have reasonable articulable suspicion to detain Appellee after the traffic stop
• the court did not err in finding Appellee's consent for the officers to search his truck was not voluntarily given
• the ruling of the District Court granting the motion to suppress is AFFIRMED
• the case is REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion

S-2009-235

Dec. 14, 2009

State Of Oklahoma

Appellant

v

Angel Chavez

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

Appellee Angel Chavez was charged in the District Court of Oklahoma County with Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Cocaine) (63 O.S.2001, § 2-415), Case No. CF-2007-3677. A Preliminary Hearing was held on February 4, 2008, at the conclusion of which Appellee was bound over for trial. On June 10, 2008, Appellee filed a Motion to Suppress and Brief in Support asserting that his detention exceeded the scope of the traffic stop thus the resulting search was illegal and the evidence seized as a result should be suppressed. Arguments were heard at a hearing held on October 14 and November 10, 2008, before the Honorable Tammy Bass-LeSure, District Judge. On February 17, 2009, the trial court sustained the Motion to Suppress and dismissed the case. In its ruling, the trial court found the officer did not have reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity to allow him to extend the Appellee’s detention beyond the traffic stop. The trial court further found the traffic stop did not turn into a consensual encounter as the Appellee would not have felt free to leave or decline the officer’s request for additional questioning based upon the officer’s conduct. Therefore, the Appellee’s consent was not voluntarily given. The State now appeals from the District Court’s decision pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp.2007, § 1053 and raises the following propositions of error:¹

I. Sergeant Sellers possessed a reasonable articulable suspicion of illegal activity by Appellee based upon the totality of the circumstances and the roadside detention of Appellee did not exceed the scope and duration of a lawful traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment.

II. Appellee freely and voluntarily gave Sergeant Sellers valid consent to search his truck and trailer.

After thorough consideration of the propositions of error and the entire record before us on appeal including the original record, transcripts, and briefs of the parties, we find the ruling of the District Court granting the motion to suppress should be affirmed and the case remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In appeals brought to this Court pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp. 2007, § 1053, this Court reviews the trial court’s decision to determine if the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Love, 1998 OK CR 32, I 2, 960 P.2d 368, 369. See also State v. Pope, 2009 OK CR 9, I 4, 204 P.3d 1285, 1287. An abuse of discretion has been defined as a conclusion or judgment that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented. Love, 1998 OK CR 32, IT 2, 960 P.2d at 369. See also Slaughter v. State, 1997 OK CR 78, I 19, 950 P.2d 839, 848 – 849.

In Proposition I, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the officer did not have reasonable articulable suspicion to detain Appellee after the traffic stop. Finding that the circumstances surrounding the traffic stop were not sufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion that Appellee had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime was not a clearly erroneous conclusion based upon the law and the evidence. See Seabolt v. State, 2006 OK CR 50, II 6, 152 P.3d 235, 237 (if the length of the investigative detention goes beyond the time necessary to reasonably effectuate the reason for the traffic stop, the Fourth Amendment requires reasonable suspicion that the person stopped has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime). See also State v. Paul, 2003 OK CR 1, IT 3, 62 P.3d 389, 390.

In Proposition II, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Appellee’s consent for the officers to search his truck was not voluntarily given. See State v. Goins, 2004 OK CR 5, IT 21, 84 P.3d 767, 771 ([w]e adopt the long standing rule that a valid stop may be extended if the encounter becomes consensual). Based upon the record before us, the trial court’s decision that a reasonable person in Appellee’s position would not have understood that with the return of his paperwork and license, but without receiving a warning or citation or any indication from the officer that the traffic stop was concluded and in the presence of three police officers, that he was free to leave or decline the officer’s request for additional questioning was not clearly erroneous. See Goins, 2004 OK CR 5, I 18, 84 P.3d at 770-771 relying on United States v. Hernandez, 93 F.3d 1493, 1498 (10th Cir. 1996) (a driver’s consent is voluntary applying the test of whether a reasonable person in the driver’s position would believe he was not free to leave). See also United States v. Guerrero-Espinoza, 462 F.3d 1302, 1308 (10th Cir. 2006) ([a]n unlawful detention occurs only when the driver has an objective reason to believe he or she is not free to end the conversation with the officer and proceed on his or her own way); United States v. Gregoire, 425 F.3d 872, 879 (10th Cir. 2005), (in determining whether an encounter is consensual, [t]he issue is whether law enforcement conduct as perceived by a reasonable person would communicate that the person was not free to decline law enforcement requests or end the encounter). Further, we cannot say that the trial court’s decision finding that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Appellee’s consent was voluntary was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented. Therefore the District Court’s order granting the motion to suppress should be affirmed.

DECISION

The ruling of the District Court granting the motion to suppress is AFFIRMED and the case is REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2008), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1053
2. Rule 2.1(D)
3. State v. Love, 1998 OK CR 32, I 2, 960 P.2d 368, 369
4. State v. Pope, 2009 OK CR 9, I 4, 204 P.3d 1285, 1287
5. Seabolt v. State, 2006 OK CR 50, II 6, 152 P.3d 235, 237
6. State v. Paul, 2003 OK CR 1, IT 3, 62 P.3d 389, 390
7. State v. Goins, 2004 OK CR 5, IT 21, 84 P.3d 767, 771
8. United States v. Hernandez, 93 F.3d 1493, 1498 (10th Cir. 1996)
9. United States v. Guerrero-Espinoza, 462 F.3d 1302, 1308 (10th Cir. 2006)
10. United States v. Gregoire, 425 F.3d 872, 879 (10th Cir. 2005)
11. Rule 3.15

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-415 - Trafficking in Illegal Drugs
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1053 - Appeal from District Court
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 18 - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

No US Code citations found.

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

• State v. Love, 1998 OK CR 32, I 2, 960 P.2d 368, 369
• State v. Pope, 2009 OK CR 9, I 4, 204 P.3d 1285, 1287
• Slaughter v. State, 1997 OK CR 78, I 19, 950 P.2d 839, 848 - 849
• Seabolt v. State, 2006 OK CR 50, II 6, 152 P.3d 235, 237
• State v. Paul, 2003 OK CR 1, IT 3, 62 P.3d 389, 390
• State v. Goins, 2004 OK CR 5, IT 21, 84 P.3d 767, 771
• United States v. Hernandez, 93 F.3d 1493, 1498 (10th Cir. 1996)
• United States v. Guerrero-Espinoza, 462 F.3d 1302, 1308 (10th Cir. 2006)
• United States v. Gregoire, 425 F.3d 872, 879 (10th Cir. 2005)