U.S. v. Ambriz-Villa, Jr.

In prosecution on drug distribution charge arising out of warrantless search of defendant’s vehicle following traffic stop, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress seizure of said drugs, even though defendant argued that search of his vehicle violated his 4th Amendment rights, where scope and manner of instant stop was unreasonable, and where his consent to search was not voluntary. Record showed that: (1) officer stopped defendant’s vehicle after observing vehicle cross white line on shoulder of road; (2) while processing warning ticket for traffic violation, officer asked defendant, who was seated in squad car, series of questions about purposes of defendant’s travel and his background; (3) defendant seemed excessively nervous throughout questioning; and (4) after officer handed warning ticket to defendant and after defendant started to leave squad car, officer asked for consent to search defendant’s vehicle and defendant gave said consent. While defendant argued that scope and manner of stop was unreasonable because officer asked him repetitive and persistent questions not tailored to reason for stop, Ct. of Appeals held that officer could ask said questions regardless of whether defendant was in or out of squad car, since said questions did not prolong duration of stop. Ct. further found that defendant’s consent was voluntary, where reasonable person would have felt free to exit squad car without having to consent to search, since defendant had ticket in his hand at time of search request.