Defendant Rene Salcido-Gonzalez was driving a rental truck on Interstate 70 in Utah when Deputy Mike Miller observed him slowing down upon seeing the patrol car and leaning back to shield his face. Miller followed the vehicle and observed two distinct traffic violations: the defendant failed to signal for the required two seconds before changing lanes and drifted outside his traffic lane in a construction zone. Miller stopped the defendant for these violations. During the stop, the defendant could not produce a rental agreement, and after a brief delay while the deputy waited for dispatch to process his license, a drug dog alerted to narcotics in the truck. A search revealed 100 pounds of methamphetamine and cocaine. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the stop was unjustified, the use of a license plate reader violated the Fourth Amendment, and the dog sniff unreasonably prolonged the detention. The district court denied the motion, and the defendant pleaded guilty before appealing.
The panel conducted a full examination of the record pursuant to the standard established in Anders v. California to determine if the appeal was wholly frivolous. First, regarding the justification for the stop, the court applied the totality of the circumstances test. It deferred to the district court's credibility findings that Deputy Miller observed the defendant change lanes twice without the two-second signal required by Utah law. The court noted that an observed traffic violation plainly justifies a stop under the Fourth Amendment. Second, the court addressed the license plate reader argument. It declined to decide whether the use of the reader was unconstitutional, applying the independent source doctrine. Even if the use of the reader was improper, the court reasoned that the drugs would have been discovered anyway because the deputy had already observed traffic violations that provided reasonable suspicion for the stop. Third, the court analyzed the duration of the stop. Citing Hoskins v. Withers, the panel found that the dog sniff did not extend the stop beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission of the stop. The deputy initiated the sniff after requesting license information and the dog alerted before dispatch returned the results. Consequently, the court determined that no non-frivolous issues existed and affirmed the judgment.
The conviction and ninety-six-month sentence are upheld. The decision reinforces the Tenth Circuit's deference to district court findings regarding witness credibility in traffic stop cases and clarifies that a dog sniff is permissible if completed while waiting for administrative processing of a driver's license. The case is remanded with instructions to grant counsel's motion to withdraw, as no non-frivolous issues remain for appeal.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download