UNITED STATES v. GOMEZ (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-03-01No. No. 20-10033

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, concluding that the officer's inquiries remained within the scope of legitimate traffic-stop activities and did not unconstitutionally prolong the detention.

Andrew Gomez appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop that led to his guilty plea on methamphetamine conspiracy charges. An officer stopped Gomez for speeding and, upon approaching the vehicle, detected a strong smell of air freshener, observed multiple air fresheners and trash inside the car, and discovered that Gomez had only a permit without it in his possession. The appellate court upheld the lower court's finding that the officer's continued questioning did not improperly extend the stop beyond what was necessary to handle the traffic violation.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether officer inquiries during a traffic stop exceeded permissible scope under Rodriguez v. United States
Whether the odor of air freshener and observations inside the vehicle justified continued questioning
Whether questioning about missing license documentation was tied to the traffic infraction

Procedural posture

Gomez appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence following his conditional guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Andrew Adam Gomez appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence following his conditional guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Officer Kenseys inquiries did not prolong the traffic stop beyond what was reasonably necessary to perform the permissible tasks outlined in Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 355, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015). Kensey stopped Gomez for a legitimate speeding violation. Upon approaching Gomezs vehicle, Kensey was overwhelmed by the strong odor of air freshener. Kensey noticed two air fresheners, one hanging from each of the front headrests, as well as numerous fast-food wrappers and containers littered throughout the car. When Kensey requested Gomezs license, Gomez explained that he only had a permit, but he did not have it with him. Under these circumstances, the district court properly concluded that Kensey was justified in continuing to ask questions because he was still in the process of completing “tasks tied to the traffic infraction,” which include inquiries that “ensur[e] that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly.” Id. Cf. United States v. Evans, 786 F.3d 779, 786 (9th Cir. 2015) (concluding that the officer impermissibly extended the stop by running ex-felon registration check unrelated to traffic safety and unsupported by separate reasonable suspicion); United States v. Gorman, 859 F.3d 706, 715 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Non-routine record checks and dog sniffs are paradigm examples of ‘unrelated investigations’ that may not be performed if they prolong a roadside detention absent independent reasonable suspicion.”).

AFFIRMED.