The State of Oklahoma v John C. Angulo

S-2016-95

Filed: Sep. 27, 2016

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma

Summary

John C. Angulo appealed his conviction for acquiring money from illegal drug activity. The conviction and sentence were upheld by the court. Judge Hudson dissented from the decision. In this case, Angulo was stopped by the police for speeding. After checking his license and giving him a warning, the officer wanted to use a drug detection dog on Angulo's vehicle, but Angulo said no and wanted to leave. The officer continued to detain him and deployed the dog, which found a lot of cash hidden in Angulo's truck. The court looked at whether the officer had a good reason to keep Angulo longer than necessary. They decided that the officer's reasons (like Angulo being nervous and having two cell phones) were not enough to justify the extra time. Therefore, they agreed that the officer shouldn't have detained Angulo after the initial stop was completed. In the end, they affirmed the decision to suppress the evidence found during the extended detention.

Decision

The Judgment of the District Court of Sequoyah County sustaining appellee's Motion to Suppress is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2016), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• was there sufficient reasonable suspicion to detain the appellee for the time needed to run a drug detection dog around his vehicles
• did the district court abuse its discretion in granting the appellee's motion to suppress evidence

Findings

• the trial court did not err in sustaining the appellee's motion to suppress
• the state’s claim of error is denied
• the judgment of the district court sustaining appellee's motion to suppress is affirmed

S-2016-95

Sep. 27, 2016

The State of Oklahoma

Appellant

v

John C. Angulo

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

SMITH, PRESIDING JUDGE:

Appellee is charged in Sequoyah County District Court, Case No. CF-2014-30, with Acquiring Proceeds from Illegal Drug Activity (63 O.S.2011, § 2-503.1), After Conviction of Several Drug-Related Felonies. Preliminary hearing was held August 13, 2014, before the Honorable Lawrence L. Langley, Special Judge. On July 24, 2015, Appellee filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence with Brief in Support. The State filed a response brief on August 17, 2015. A hearing on the motion was held January 21 and February 4, 2016 before the Honorable Jeffrey Payton, District Judge. After considering the transcript of the preliminary hearing and a video recording of the traffic stop at issue, the district court granted Appellee’s motion to suppress, and issued a written order memorializing its findings and conclusions. The State gave timely notice of its intention to appeal the court’s ruling. This appeal is properly brought under 22 O.S.2011, § 1053(5), and we accept the State’s assertion (not disputed by Appellee) that appellate review is in the best interests of justice. See id.

The State raises one proposition of error in support of its appeal:

PROPOSITION I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE APPELLEE’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE OFFICER DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT REASONABLE SUSPICION TO DETAIN THE APPELLEE FOR THE TIME NEEDED TO RUN A DRUG DETECTION DOG AROUND APPELLEE’S VEHICLES.

This case stems from a traffic stop by the Oklahoma Highway Patrol for speeding. Appellee was the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle. The trooper checked Appellee’s license and vehicle information, asked him about his travel plans, and issued him a warning. After returning Appellee’s documents to him, the trooper sought permission to run his drug-sniffing canine around Appellee’s truck. Appellee declined, and expressed a desire to be on his way. Nevertheless, the trooper asked Appellee to get back in the patrol vehicle and proceeded to deploy the canine. Eventually, the canine led the trooper to a large quantity of cash secreted in the truck’s spare tire. The State appeals the district court’s ruling that the trooper lacked reasonable suspicion to continue detaining Appellee after the business of the traffic stop was completed.

The trooper testified that (1) Appellee appeared very nervous during the encounter; (2) the interior of Appellee’s truck was very clean, smelled strongly of air freshener, and appeared to have been wiped down with protectant; and (3) Appellee had two cell phones in his possession. This was the extent of the factual basis for the continued detention in order to deploy the drug-sniffing canine. When the State appeals a district court’s adverse ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we review that ruling for an abuse of discretion. State v. Hooley, 2012 OK CR 3, ¶ 4, 269 P.3d 949, 950. An abuse of discretion is any unreasonable or arbitrary action made without proper consideration of the relevant facts and law, also described as a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, clearly against the logic and effect of the facts. Neloms v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, ¶ 35, 274 P.3d 161, 170. We consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. We accept any factual determinations supported by evidence, but review any legal conclusions de novo. Coffia v. State, 2008 OK CR 24, ¶ 5, 191 P.3d 594, 596; Seabolt v. State, 2006 OK CR 50, ¶ 5, 152 P.3d 235, 237. While an arrest requires probable cause to believe the person has committed a crime, police may temporarily detain on less than probable cause if they have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19-20, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). When an officer stops a motorist for violating traffic laws, he should expeditiously take care of the business at hand, e.g., checking the driver’s license, vehicle registration and insurance, and issuing any warning or citation for the offense. United States v. Hunnicutt, 135 F.3d 1345, 1349 (10th Cir. 1998). See also Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1325, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) (an investigative detention should last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop, and its scope must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification). An officer may prolong the detention after the business of the traffic stop has been completed, if he has an objectively reasonable suspicion that illegal activity may be occurring. Facts that may contribute to such suspicion include (but certainly are not limited to) inconsistent statements about destination, and questionable proof of ownership or authority to operate the vehicle. State v. Paul, 2003 OK CR 1, ¶ 3, 62 P.3d 389, 390.

Having reviewed the testimony of the trooper who conducted the stop, the video of the encounter as recorded by the trooper’s dashboard camera, and the arguments of counsel, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that the continued detention of Appellee, based solely on the three factors identified above, was unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances. Hooley, 2012 OK CR 3, ¶ 4, 269 P.3d at 950. The State’s claim of error is denied.

DECISION

The Judgment of the District Court of Sequoyah County sustaining appellee’s Motion to Suppress is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2016), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 63 O.S.2011, § 2-503.1
2. 22 O.S.2011, § 1053(5)
3. State v. Hooley, 2012 OK CR 3, 1 4, 269 P.3d 949, 950.
4. Neloms v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, I 35, 274 P.3d 161, 170.
5. Coffia U. State, 2008 OK CR 24, 1 5, 191 P.3d 594, 596;
6. Seabolt v. State, 2006 OK CR 50, I 5, 152 P.3d 235, 237.
7. Terry U. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19-20, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
8. United States v. Hunnicutt, 135 F.3d 1345, 1349 (10th Cir. 1998).
9. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1325, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983).
10. State v. Paul, 2003 OK CR 1, 9 3, 62 P.3d 389, 390.
11. State v. Bass, 2013 OK CR 7, III 10-19, 300 P.3d 1193, 1196-98.
12. State v. Bass, 2013 OK CR 7, III 16-17, 300 P.3d at 1197.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 63 § 2-503.1 - Acquiring Proceeds from Illegal Drug Activity
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1053 - Right to Appeal
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 - Definitions; Definitions relating to drug offenses

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. Hooley, 2012 OK CR 3, I 4, 269 P.3d 949, 950.
• Neloms v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, I 35, 274 P.3d 161, 170.
• Coffia v. State, 2008 OK CR 24, I 5, 191 P.3d 594, 596.
• Seabolt v. State, 2006 OK CR 50, I 5, 152 P.3d 235, 237.
• State v. Paul, 2003 OK CR 1, I 3, 62 P.3d 389, 390.
• State v. Bass, 2013 OK CR 7, III 10-19, 300 P.3d 1193, 1196-98.