Constitutional – Search & Seizure – Traffic Stop – Administrative – Immigration – Green-Card Check

Listen to this article

U.S. v. Guijon-Ortiz (Lawyers Weekly No. 001-164-11, 23 pp.) (Davis, J.) No. 10-4518, Nov. 10, 2011; USDC at Charleston, W.Va. (Copenhaver, J.) 4th Cir. Click here for the full-text opinion.

Holding: A police officer who questioned a pickup passenger’s alien legal residence card during a routine traffic stop did not violate the passenger’s Fourth Amendment rights when he extended the stop to call the local customs office to check the validity of the passenger’s identification, and the 4th Circuit affirms defendant passenger’s conviction for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Defendant tried to suppress evidence obtained during the traffic stop, including his roadside admission he was in the country illegally, biographical information gathered at the Bureau of Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) office; fingerprints taken at the ICE office; defendant’s post-Miranda statements; and any information in his immigration file obtained after running the fingerprints that showed his prior felony conviction.

The question on appeal is a narrow one: Once the officer learned there were no outstanding warrants, and having been provided a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) card by defendant as identification, was the officer permitted to then call ICE – a call that took some portion of a “few minutes” – to verify the validity of the LPR card?

Defendant argues the moment the officer learned there were no outstanding warrants associated with the three names he had given the dispatcher, the justification for the traffic stop ended. At that point, he argues, the Fourth Amendment required the officer to return the ID cards and send the driver and passengers on their way. We disagree.

Although the officer’s call to ICE was unrelated to the justification for the stop and extended the time (if only for a portion of a few minutes) during which the officer kept the vehicle at the side of the highway, the totality of the circumstances demonstrates the officer diligently pursued the investigation of the justification for the stop and was not otherwise dilatory in his investigation.

Officers routinely run checks on the validity of a driver’s license and registration, and the LPR check here was analogous. Defendant voluntarily handed the officer an ID he knew to be fraudulently made. The time it took to call ICE was very brief. The fact that the officer made a single, brief phone call does not demonstrate definitively that he had abandoned the prosecution of the traffic stop and embarked on another sustained course of investigation. The truck was pulled for exceeding the speed limit and weaving onto the shoulder. The purpose of the stop was “still alive” at the time the officer called ICE. When the officer ran the warrant search and called ICE, he had not yet assured himself the driver had not been drinking. Finally, although checking the validity of the LPR card was unrelated to the traffic stop, the call was a single, brief detour from an otherwise diligent investigation into whether the driver was impaired.

Our approach to this matter is narrower than that of the district court below. To the extent that, under the district court’s reasoning, the reasonableness of a prolonged traffic stop would be judged solely on the duration of the stop, we reject that reasoning. Although an officer may investigate matters unrelated to the justification for a traffic stop, those investigatory pursuits must be limited in both scope and duration and are evaluated under the totality of the circumstances.

Denial of motion to suppress is affirmed.