State of Iowa v. Oscar Villafana-Ray ( 2020 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-1379
Filed June 17, 2020
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
OSCAR VILLAFANA-RAY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Brook
Jacobsen, District Associate Judge.
A defendant appeals his conviction of possession of a controlled substance.
AFFIRMED.
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Mary K. Conroy, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.
2
MAY, Judge.
Following a trial on the minutes, the district court convicted Oscar Villafana-
Ray of a drug offense. On appeal, Villafana-Ray argues the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress. We affirm.
On February 5, 2019, Officer Robert Michael was on routine patrol. He
randomly ran the license plate number of a Buick automobile that was sitting
outside a grocery store. The system reported the Buick’s registered owner was
named Mateo Gutierrez. It also reported that Mateo had a suspended driver’s
license. So Officer Michael parked nearby and waited for someone to move the
car. While waiting, he obtained Mateo’s Department of Transportation picture.
Someone got in the Buick and started driving it. Officer Michael thought the
driver looked like Mateo. But before Officer Michael could initiate a traffic stop, the
driver pulled over and quickly got out of the vehicle. Officer Michael approached
the driver and asked if he was Mateo. The driver—who was later identified as
Villafana-Ray—denied being Mateo. Instead, he said his name was “Oscar” and
explained he was Mateo’s brother. Officer Michael asked him if he had
identification. Villafana-Ray said he did not. So Officer Michael decided to detain
Villafana-Ray while he investigated his identify.
Before putting Villafana-Ray in the back of the police car, Officer Michael
performed a pat-down search. He felt a suspicious item. Later testing would show
the item was synthetic marijuana.
Once Villafana-Ray was in the backseat, Officer Michael ran Villafana-Ray’s
provided information. Officer Michael also radioed dispatch to confirm Villafana-
3
Ray’s identity. Officer Michael then learned Villafana-Ray had a suspended
license and a warrant out for his arrest. So Officer Michael arrested Villafana-Ray.
The State charged Villafana-Ray with possession of a controlled substance
in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2019). Villafana-Ray filed a motion
to suppress. He argued any reasonable suspicion for the stop ended after
Villafana-Ray informed Officer Michael that he was not the registered owner of the
vehicle. Following a hearing, the district court denied the motion and noted “the
statement from the individual alone is not enough to completely dispel the
reasonable suspicion that was the basis for the stop.” Villafana-Ray agreed to a
trial on the minutes of evidence. He was convicted of possession of a controlled
substance (synthetic marijuana), first offense. Villafana-Ray appeals.
“We review the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress on
constitutional grounds de novo.” State v. Coleman, 890 N.W.2d 284, 286 (Iowa
2017). “We examine the entire record and ‘make an independent evaluation of the
totality of the circumstances.’” State v. Brown, 930 N.W.2d 840, 844 (Iowa 2019)
(quoting State v. Meyer, 543 N.W.2d 876, 877 (Iowa 1996)). “We give deference
to the district court’s fact findings due to its opportunity to assess the credibility of
the witnesses, but we are not bound by those findings.” State v. Storm, 898
N.W.2d 140, 144 (Iowa 2017) (quoting State v. Brown, 890 N.W.2d 315, 321 (Iowa
2017)).
Villafana-Ray contends the district court erred in concluding State v.
Coleman, 890 N.W.2d 284 (Iowa 2017), did not require suppression. He argues
that, once Officer Michael “was made aware that Villafana-Ray was not the
registered owner of the vehicle, under Coleman, his further detention of Villafana-
4
Ray and the checking of Villafana-Ray’s license status unconstitutionally extended
the traffic stop.”
We start with the general rule that
an officer has reasonable suspicion to initiate an investigatory stop
of a vehicle to investigate whether the driver has a valid driver’s
license when [1] the officer knows the registered owner of the vehicle
has a suspended license, and [2] the officer is unaware of any
evidence or circumstances indicating the registered owner is not the
driver of the vehicle.
State v. Vance, 790 N.W.2d 775, 781 (Iowa 2010). Coleman elaborated on this
rule. 890 N.W.2d at 301. Like the case at bar, Coleman involved a traffic stop
after a police officer performed random license plate checks. Id. at 285. The officer
in Coleman stopped a vehicle because the owner of the vehicle, who was female,
had a suspended driver’s license. Id. But when the officer approached the vehicle,
“it was clear . . . that the driver was male, not female.” Id. This discovery, the
Coleman court held, should have ended the stop. See id. at 301. The court
explained “that when the reason for a traffic stop is resolved and there is no other
basis for reasonable suspicion, article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution requires
that the driver must be allowed to go his or her way without further ado.” Id.
Villafana-Ray does not dispute that, because Officer Michael knew the
Buick’s owner had a suspended license, there was reasonable suspicion to initiate
the traffic stop. But he argues that, once he denied being the registered owner of
the vehicle, any reasonable suspicion was dispelled and Coleman prohibited any
further inquiry. We disagree. “Coleman only applies if outward attributes make it
obvious that the gender, race, or age of the driver or other occupants of the
stopped vehicle do not match the identity of the registered owner, who is the focus
5
of the investigation.” State v. Kilpatrick, No. 17-0817, 2018 WL 3060259, at *3
(Iowa Ct. App. June 20, 2018). Conversely, police officers are “entitled to extend
[a] stop long enough to resolve any ambiguity concerning the occupants’ identities”
when the driver “generally matche[s]” the registered owner’s description. Id. Here,
Officer Michael believed Villafana-Ray looked similar to the description of the
registered owner—Mateo—who had no valid license to drive the Buick. And
although Villafana-Ray denied being the owner, Officer Michael was not obligated
to just take his word for it, especially since Villafana-Ray could provide no
identification. Cf. id. (“In the officers’ experience, suspects are not always truthful
about their identities.”). Instead, Officer Michael was entitled to detain Villafana-
Ray until “any ambiguity” about his identity was resolved. See id.
Alternatively, Villafana-Ray asserts that “it is clear from the record that the
only additional information needed to verify that Villafana-Ray was not the
registered owner was his full name and birthdate.” So once this information was
confirmed, “the reasonable suspicion for the stop had been resolved and further
detention of Villafana-Ray—including the time it took to run his driver’s license
status and discover it was suspended and Villafana-Ray had an outstanding arrest
warrant—was unlawful.” But Officer Michael testified he confirmed Villafana-Ray’s
identity and simultaneously learned about his license status and outstanding
warrant. See Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 355 (2015) (noting “[a]n
officer . . . may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic
stop,” so long as it does not prolong the stop). So reasonable suspicion had not
yet ended. See Coleman, 890 N.W.2d at 301.
6
We note also that, even if there had never been a question about Villafana-
Ray’s identity, Officer Michael’s actions were still justified. As the State correctly
notes, Iowa Code section 321.174(3) requires anyone who drives on Iowa
roadways to have their driver’s license in their “immediate possession at all times
when operating a motor vehicle.” It also requires drivers to “display” their license
“upon demand of a . . . peace officer.” Iowa Code § 321.174(3). So when
Villafana-Ray told Officer Michael he had no form of identification, there was
probable cause to believe Villafana-Ray had operated the Buick without a license
in his possession. There was also reasonable suspicion Villafana-Ray had no
license at all. So we agree with the State that, “[r]ight off the bat, Officer Michael
had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop to determine the extent of Villafana-
Ray’s infractions.”
The district court appropriately denied Villafana-Ray’s motion to suppress.1
AFFIRMED.
1 We note that Villafana-Ray also contends the pat-down was unconstitutional.
The district court concluded, and the State does not dispute, that the pat-down was
unwarranted. But the district court also found that, even if the pat-down would not
have occurred, the drugs in Villafana-Ray’s pants would still have been discovered
during his ultimate arrest. So the district court ruled the doctrine of inevitable
discovery applies. See State v. Christianson, 627 N.W.2d 910, 912 (Iowa 2001)
(noting that under the inevitable-discovery doctrine, “relevant, probative evidence
gathered despite Fourth Amendment violations is not constitutionally excluded
when the police would have inevitably discovered the same evidence acting
properly”). Villafana-Ray does not challenge this ruling. And we decline to explore
the issue on his behalf. See Hyler v. Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864, 876 (Iowa 1996)
(“[W]e will not speculate on the arguments [an appellant] might have made and
then search for legal authority and comb the record for facts to support such
arguments.”).