United States v. Gastelum

11 F.4th 898

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee

v.Aldo Daniel GASTELUM, Defendant - Appellant

No. 20-3451

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 17, 2021

Filed: September 1, 2021

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied October 5, 2021

Sydney L. Butler, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith, AR, Graham Jones, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Aldo Daniel Gastelum, Adelanto, CA, Pro Se.

Justin Byrum Hurst, Hurst Law Group, Hot Springs, AR, Caleb E. Mason, Werksman & Jackson, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

ERICKSON, Circuit Judge.

After stopping Aldo Daniel Gastelum's rental car for a traffic violation, Arkansas State Trooper Bernard Pettit conducted a warrantless search of the vehicle's trunk and found over 15 kilograms of a mixture or substance containing cocaine. Gastelum moved to suppress the evidence from the search, claiming Trooper Pettit impermissibly extended the traffic stop and Gastelum did not voluntarily consent to the search of his trunk. The district court¹ denied Gastelum's motion. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In the early evening hours of April 7, 2018, Trooper Pettit stopped Gastelum, who was driving on a busy interstate in Arkansas, for an unsafe lane change. Trooper Pettit approached the passenger-side window of the vehicle, informed Gastelum of the reason for the stop, told him to be more careful when changing lanes, and asked for his license and insurance information. Gastelum indicated the vehicle was rented and handed over the rental information.

Trooper Pettit asked Gastelum about his travel plans. The encounter was captured on video and was conversational and friendly. When Trooper Pettit inquired about where Gastelum was going, Gastelum said he had rented the vehicle in Houston and was on his way to Chicago. Gastelum reported that he was a veteran of both the Marine Corps and the Army and that he was visiting Army Reserve facilities to try to secure a position in the Army Reserve. Gastelum said he had left the service in 2012, and when Trooper Pettit asked him what he had been doing since, Gastelum explained he was now a college student in California and had broke his leg in a hit-and-run accident. Trooper Pettit inquired how Gastelum got to Houston, and Gastelum rather randomly discussed reserve units in Houston. Gastelum eventually explained that he was planning to fly back to California from Chicago. When Trooper Pettit asked about joining a reserve unit in California, Gastelum said he was interested in medical units in Houston and San Antonio.

Trooper Pettit returned to his patrol vehicle and confirmed Gastelum's license and identification information. Trooper Pettit also reviewed the rental agreement and noticed that it was a one-way single-day rental agreement for $734.39. Trooper Pettit found the details regarding Gasetlum's trip, such as its length, cost, and reason, peculiar.

Gastelum had been stopped for approximately 15 minutes when Trooper Pettit printed a warning for the unsafe lane change and walked back to Gastelum's vehicle. After commenting on the weather, Trooper Pettit stated, "Okay, we're about done here." The tone of the conversation remained friendly as Trooper Pettit asked Gastelum whether he had any luggage in the trunk. When Gastelum responded that he did, Trooper Pettit replied, "Quick check of that and then we'll be done. Alright, come on out for me and pop that trunk on your way out." Gastelum fumbled for the trunk release, apparently unfamiliar with the rental car. Trooper Pettit turned his body towards the back of the vehicle, whistled, and then joked that trunk releases "are kind of hard to find." Before Gastelum opened the trunk, but while he was looking for the trunk release, Trooper Pettit asked Gastelum, "You don't mind if I look back there, do you? You don't care, huh? That's fine?" Trooper Pettit testified that he was repeating what Gastelum was saying. Shortly thereafter, Gastelum opened the trunk and exited the vehicle.

Trooper Pettit opened a duffle bag in the trunk and saw a large quantity of cocaine. He ordered Gastelum to the ground and handcuffed him. Over 15 kilograms of cocaine were eventually recovered from the trunk.

Gastelum was indicted for possessing with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(ii)(II). He moved to suppress the cocaine, arguing that Trooper Pettit violated the Fourth Amendment both when he extended the traffic stop and when he searched the trunk. An evidentiary hearing was held, and the court denied the motion.

Gastelum conditionally pled guilty to the cocaine charge. He was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release. Gastelum appeals the denial of his suppression motion.

II. DISCUSSION

"In reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress, we review the district court's findings of fact for clear error, giving due weight to the inferences police drew from those facts. We review de novo the district court's legal conclusion that reasonable suspicion or probable cause existed." United States v. Pacheco, 996 F.3d 508, 511 (8th Cir. 2021) (citations omitted).

Gastelum does not dispute that Trooper Pettit's initial decision to conduct a traffic stop was lawful. He instead argues that Trooper Pettit (1) unreasonably prolonged the stop, and (2) unlawfully searched the trunk without voluntary consent.

A. Extension of the Traffic Stop

Gastelum does not challenge any portion of the traffic stop occurring prior to Trooper Pettit issuing a warning ticket. Instead, he contends Trooper Pettit lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the stop once Trooper Pettit returned to his vehicle with a warning ticket. We disagree.

Under the Fourth Amendment, an officer may not extend a stop beyond "the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made" unless he develops a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 350, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015). "An officer's suspicion of criminal activity may reasonably grow over the course of a traffic stop as the circumstances unfold and more suspicious facts are uncovered." United States v. Magallon, 984 F.3d 1263, 1278 (8th Cir. 2021) (citations omitted). Reasonable suspicion requires "a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing based upon [the officer's] own experience and specialized training." Pacheco, 996 F.3d at 511 (citations omitted). While a "mere hunch" is insufficient, "the likelihood of criminal activity need not rise to the level required for probable cause, and it falls considerably short of satisfying a preponderance of the evidence standard." United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 274, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002) (cleaned up). The reasonable suspicion analysis is based on the totality of the circumstances meaning individual elements of suspicion are not to be viewed in isolation. United States v. Sanchez, 955 F.3d 669, 675 (8th Cir. 2020).

Considering the totality of the circumstances in this case, Trooper Pettit had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. Trooper Pettit, a law enforcement officer with over 25 years of experience, has attended numerous drug-interdiction trainings each year since 2008 and has participated in as many as 100 traffic stops resulting in criminal seizures. Numerous facts alerted this experienced officer that criminal activity was afoot.

First, Trooper Pettit recognized that the rental was for too short of a time to accomplish Gastelum's stated goal of visiting reserve centers to inquire about positions in medical units. With a one-day rental and a 12–15 hour drive from Houston to Chicago, there was very little time to visit reserve units. In addition, Trooper Pettit stopped Gastelum about six hours from Houston. Gastelum rented the car in Houston about six hours before the stop, rendering it unlikely that Gastelum was telling the truth about visiting medical units in Houston and San Antonio.

Trooper Pettit also discerned that the cost of the car rental far exceeded the cost of flying. Based on his training and experience, Trooper Pettit was aware that drug smugglers often transport narcotics in rental vehicles (rather than planes) regardless of the cost. We have previously found the existence of reasonable suspicion based on both "the incongruity between [a defendant's] short rental period and his described travel plans" and "the ‘outwardly puzzling decision to rent a car for a one-way trip at substantial expense.’ " Pacheco, 996 F.3d at 512 (quoting United States v. McCarty, 612 F.3d 1020, 1025 (8th Cir. 2010) ); see also United States v. Murillo-Salgado, 854 F.3d 407, 416 (8th Cir. 2017) (rental period).

Second, Gastelum's explanation for the purpose of his trip did not make sense. Trooper Pettit could not discern why a disabled college student would spend the time and expense to travel from California to Houston and then Chicago to visit reserve units, rather than just visit reserve units in California. And, although Trooper Pettit admitted he had never worked as a military recruiter, he served in the Air Force Reserves and knew that individuals do not just drive up to reserve units seeking a billet. We have found that "odd answers" and strange travel plans can support a finding of reasonable suspicion. Pacheco, 996 F.3d at 512 ; see also Sanchez, 955 F.3d at 675 (finding reasonable suspicion based, in part, on the strangeness of an out-of-state vehicle traveling at night with babies purportedly to do a paint job).

Third, Trooper Pettit's suspicion was heightened by the emphasis Gastelum repeatedly placed on his military background during their conversation. For example, when Trooper Pettit tried to determine how Gastelum arrived in...