7th Circuit: traffic stop constitutional

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A traffic stop in which police found drugs after telling the defendant he was free to go did not violate the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, ruled the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals today.

In U.S.A. v. Fernando Figueroa-Espana, No. 06-4270, Figueroa-Espana challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and his sentence of 176 months for his guilty plea to one count of possession with intent to distribute 5 kilograms of cocaine.

An Indiana State trooper stopped Figueroa-Espana March 7, 2006, after seeing him tailgate a car while driving on Interstate 65. During the traffic stop, the police officer spoke in broken Spanish and English to Figueroa-Espana to try to figure out who owned the truck, if he had a valid driver's license, and his destination. Another trooper, who spoke better Spanish, came to the scene. Figueroa-Espana did not have a valid driver's license, did not own the truck he was driving, nor did he know who owned it. Figueroa-Espana told the second trooper he was in the country illegally; both troopers said Figueroa-Espana was acting nervous during the stop.

After issuing him a warning ticket and telling him he was free to go, the troopers decided to ask him some more questions and one honked his police horn, which caused the siren to go off briefly. The second trooper asked Figueroa-Espana if he could search the truck, and Figueroa-Espana consented. The troopers found hidden compartments containing approximately 10 kilograms of cocaine.

Figueroa-Espana was arrested, read his Miranda rights, and admitted to knowingly transporting the drugs. At trial, he filed a motion to suppress the drugs recovered from the search of the truck; the District Court denied his motion. Figueroa-Espana then entered a conditional guilty plea and was sentenced to 176 months in prison and five years' supervised release.

Figueroa-Espana argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the search of the truck, so the drugs recovered should not be allowed at trial. The Circuit Court found that his constitutional rights weren't violated because the troopers told Figueroa-Espana he was free to go at any time after he was given the ticket and the activation of the police siren did not indicate a new traffic stop. He was also told he didn't have to allow the troopers to search the truck, but he consented.

Figueroa-Espana did not own the truck he was driving and he had no reasonable expectation of privacy, so he would not have any constitutional protection over the search of the car, wrote Judge William Bauer.

Finally, Figueroa-Espana argued the District Court's sentence was affected by his motion to suppress evidence but, Judge Bauer wrote, the fact he lied repeatedly about who owned the truck impacted his sentence.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit