United States v. Leopoldo Gonzalez

In United States v. Leopoldo Antonio Gonzalez, No. 23-10963 (5th Cir. July 9, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress his traffic stop. In doing so, the court rejected two arguments that are worth highlighting.

Issue 1: Did the trooper impermissibly extend the traffic stop in order to question Gonzalez about matters unrelated to speeding, which is why Gonzalez was originally stopped, and to seek consent to search the car? No.

Under Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015), a traffic stop may not last longer than necessary to address the traffic violation that justified the original stop. An officer no longer has authority to continue the stop once “tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed.” Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 354. But if the officer develops reasonable suspicion of other crimes before that time expires, he may “detain the car’s occupants for a reasonable time until that reasonable suspicion is dispelled or confirmed.”

Finding 1: Here, about ten minutes of the stop was “reasonably related” to Gonzalez’s speeding. The trooper was “performing the necessary computer checks to confirm the ownership and insurance status of the vehicle” and reviewing Gonzalez’s criminal record. During that time, the trooper was permitted to ask Gonzalez questions because the questioning “did not extend the duration of the stop.”

Finding 2: And by the time those tasks were completed, the trooper had developed reasonable suspicion of other crimes, which justified extending the traffic stop. In particular, the Fifth Circuit noted the trooper’s testimony about “Gonzalez’s nervous behavior, [his] implausible story, and the trooper’s deductions therefrom,” which justified a suspicion that “Gonzalez was involved in criminal activity.”

Issue 2: Did the district court err by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on Gonzalez’s motion to suppress? No.

An evidentiary hearing is only required if “the defendant alleges sufficient facts which, if proven, would justify relief.” United States v. Harrelson, 705 F.2d 733, 737 (5th Cir. 1983). “Where a defendant does not contest the Government’s factual assertions or identify disputed facts that require a hearing, a district court does not abuse its discretion by declining to conduct a suppression hearing” (cleaned up).

In his pleadings, “Gonzalez did not identify any significant conflicts between the facts he alleged in his motion to suppress and those alleged by the Government.” Instead, he “focused on the reasonableness of the officer’s actions.” So on appeal, Gonzalez’s argument failed because he could not identify any “disputed facts that required a hearing.” United States v. Casper, 536 F.3d 409, 413 (5th Cir. 2008), vacated on other grounds, 556 U.S. 1218 (2009).