|
Hidden Compartment In Motor Vehicle Can Provide
Probable Cause for Search
By Brian Batterton
Just the Facts...
On May 16, 2006 the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, in
the above case, held that the presence of a hidden
compartment in vehicle, taken with the totality of the
circumstances, provides probable cause for a
warrantless search. In this case, a Kansas State
Trooper observed a group of three vehicles traveling
close together in the slow lane on I-70. One of the
vehicles had Michigan plates. Another, a black Chevy
van, had no visible license plate or registration. The
Trooper testified that he did not see any license plate
on the vehicle. Because Kansas law requires license
plates to appear "in a place and position to be clearly
visible," the Trooper conducted a traffic stop. As he
approached the car on foot, he could see a temporary
registration in the rear window. However, due to
the “extremely dark” tinting of the rear window, the tag
was hard to read, even at a distance of four to five
feet. The Trooper testified that he could not tell what
state issued the registration.
The Trooper met with the driver of the car, Maria
Concepcion-Ledesma, and her passenger, Lena
Beydoun. He asked Ms. Concepcion-Ledesma for her
license, registration, and insurance information, and
informed her that the vehicle's tag was unreadable
and not visible. The Trooper then asked the women
about their travel plans and they replied that they were
driving from Detroit to Los Angeles for a vacation of
one or two weeks. Additionally, they were unable to
provide a name of a person or place they were going
to reside in Los Angeles, they carried only two small
bags in the vehicle and they denied traveling with any
other vehicles. The Trooper believed the denial
suspicious because he had observed the three
vehicles traveling close together, and because at least
one of the other vehicles had Michigan plates, both
women had Michigan driver's licenses, and they
indicated that they were traveling from Detroit.
Throughout the conversation, both women appeared
extremely nervous, not making eye contact and
having “shaky” voices.
The Trooper completed a warning citation for the
obscured tag, told Ms. Concepcion-Ledesma that she
was receiving a warning and then said “Thank you
girls. You have a safe one. Ma’am you wouldn’t have
anything, uh, weapons, or any type of illegal stuff in the
back?” The women said that they did not and the
Trooper then asked “Could we look, could we take a
minute to look back there? Just your bag and stuff.”
Another Trooper arrived and they opened the back
doors of the van. They saw two small duffel bags and
also observed that the side walls and panels
appeared to have been taken off or tampered with.
The screws that hold the panels in also appeared
scarred. The Troopers further observed that the
carpet and panels did not match up and appeared
offset as if there were a hidden compartment. One of
the Troopers removed a manufactured cup holder and
the foam under it. He discovered pseudoephedrine
tablets. A further search revealed 330 pounds of
pseudoephedrine. Ms. Concepcion-Ledesma was
charged with possession of pseudoephedrine with
reason to believe it would be used to manufacture
methamphetamine. *i
What could possibly be wrong with this
case...
Ms. Concepcion-Ledesma appealed the admission of
the evidence citing three issues. First, she contends
the Trooper exceeded the permissible scope of the
traffic stop. Second, she states that she did not
voluntarily consent to any search of her vehicle. Lastly,
she contends that she only consented to a limited
search of her vehicle rather than a search of the walls
and panels.
Does the Court agree...
As to the first issue, the Court points to a specific
Kansas traffic law statute that requires a tag to be “in a
place and position to be clearly visible.”
*ii Here, the tag was behind a very
darkly tinted window that rendered the tag
unreadable. The court held that, while the Michigan
temporary tag was displayed along the guidelines
provided by the State of Michigan, this was still a
reasonable detention because the tag appeared to be
displayed in violation of Kansas law. The Court stated
that officers are not required to possess
an “encyclopedic knowledge” of traffic law from other
states. *iii As such it was
reasonable for the Trooper to issue a warning, verify
Ms. Concepcion-Ledesma’s license and registration
information and ask preliminary questions about
travel plans.
Next, the Court considered the issue of whether Ms.
Concepcion-Ledesam’s consent was voluntary. The
United States Supreme Court has stated that officers
do not need to expressly advise a person that they
are “free to go” before requesting consent to search.
*iv Here, the Trooper advised Ms.
Concepcion-Ledesma and her passenger two
statements that indicated they were free to go. The
statements were “Thank you girls” and “have a safe
one.” The Court reasoned that these statements
signaled the end of the official encounter and
therefore, any additional discussion was consensual.
The Court also considered whether the consent was
given voluntarily which is a question to be answered
from the totality of the circumstances.
*v Factors that the Court considers
are the tone of voice the officer used, compelling
statements on the part of the officers, multiple officers,
prolong retention of identification documents or
personal items, and absence of other members of the
public. *vi In this case, the officer
used a pleasant, ordinary tone of voice, the subject
was free to leave, there was only one officer present
when consent was requested and the encounter took
place in public. Thus, the Court held that the consent
was voluntary.
Lastly, Ms. Concepcion-Ledesma contends that she
only consented to a limited search of the bags in the
van rather than a search of panels and walls of the
van. The Court held that the initial limited consent to
search bags and the general open area of the van got
the Troopers lawfully inside the van. Once inside the
van, the Troopers observed the aforementioned facts
that indicated the presence of a hidden compartment.
The Court stated that they consider two factors when
determining whether a hidden compartment provides
probable cause for a warrantless search of a motor
vehicle. First, they consider the likelihood that there
really is a hidden compartment. Second, they
consider the likelihood that the hidden compartment
is secreting contraband. *vii The
10th Circuit then stated that this second factor is “not a
concern” because, if the vehicle contains a hidden
compartment, it is highly likely to contain contraband;
further, the court stated there is little legitimate use for
a hidden compartment. *viii Here,
the Court applied the above rule and stated
Because the evidence was highly probative of the
existence of a secret compartment, and because it is
difficult to imagine a licit purpose for a large hidden
compartment in a vehicle the size of a Chevy van,
these signs of a hidden compartment strongly
suggest -- and perhaps even single-handedly
establish -- probable cause to search behind the side
panels in the rear of the van. *ix
In conclusion, the Court found that there was “easily
probable cause” to search the van.
*x They did consider some other
factors in this case in solidifying their probable cause
determination. First, they stated the small amount of
luggage was implausible considering the statement
that the purpose of the trip was a two week stay in Los
Angeles. Second, the denial of traveling with other
vehicles was suspicious in light of what the Trooper
had observed. Lastly, the extreme nervousness was
also considered in determining probable cause.
__________
CITATIONS:
- 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2)
- K.S.A. § 8-133
- United States v. Concepcion-Ledesma, 447 F.3d
1307, 1313 (10th Cir. 2006)
- Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973)
- United States v. Hill, 199 F.3d 1143 (10th Cir. 1999)
- United States v. Jurado-Vallego, 380 F.3d. 1235
(10th Cir. 2004)
- Id. at 1238.
- United States v. Concepcion-Ledesma, 447 F.3d
1307, 1318 (10th Cir. 2006)
- Id.
|
Overview
Has the officer articulated probable cause to believe
that the vehicle to be searched contains evidence or
contraband? Information-Reliable Informants / Good
Citizen Informants.
Did officer limit scope of search in accordance with
the size of the object sought?
Did officer limit scope of search based upon the
particular information and observations that were
made?.
Further Details & Ordering |
