United States v. Langel

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
March 11, 2008
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 07-1319
v. (D.Ct. No. 06-cr-00424-REB)
(D. Colo.)
ZACHARY LANGEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, Circuit Judge, and BARRETT and BRORBY, Senior Circuit
Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Appellant Zachary Langel pled guilty to one count of being a felon in
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He now appeals his
conviction, arguing the district court erred in failing to suppress a firearm
discovered in his car during a traffic stop which he contends violated his Fourth
Amendment rights. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and
affirm Mr. Langel’s conviction.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
The facts of Mr. Langel’s traffic stop are outlined in the district court’s
order on his motion to suppress and supported in the record provided on appeal.
See United States v. Langel, 2007 WL 1229316 (D. Colo. April 24, 2007) (slip
op.). We recount only those facts necessary for consideration of the single issue
presented by Mr. Langel on appeal.
On September 27, 2006, at 8:24 p.m., three officers from the Aurora,
Colorado Police Department were in an unmarked vehicle patrolling east Colfax
Avenue – a major four-lane street consisting of two eastbound and two westbound
traffic lanes. Id. at *1. The traffic was moderately heavy and the officers were
following a vehicle directly in front of them in the right-hand lane. Id. After
following the vehicle for about three blocks, or approximately thirty seconds, they
observed it cross approximately one foot over the dotted center line separating the
right westbound lane from the left westbound lane, where it remained for about a
-2-
second. Id. The vehicle then moved further to the left, where it straddled the
center line and remained for another second before swerving abruptly back into
the right westbound lane in which it had been traveling. Id. During this time,
another vehicle was traveling in the left westbound lane between the officers’
vehicle and the vehicle they were following, but no collision occurred. Id. The
erratic acts of weaving and swerving were not proceeded by a turn or hand signal
or dictated by traffic, road, or weather conditions. Id. These acts also occurred
in an area known to have a high incidence of alcohol- and drug-related driving
offenses, vehicle accidents, and pedestrian-vehicle accidents. Id.The officers initiated a traffic stop. Id. at *2. As Officer David Gallegos
approached the driver’s side and Officer Michael Gaskill approached the
passenger’s side, the driver, Mr. Langel, rolled down the passenger’s side
window; at this time, Officer Gallegos could see smoke in the car and smell a
heavy odor he recognized as freshly burnt marijuana. Id. The traffic stop then
became a criminal investigation based on the belief Mr. Langel may have been
driving under the influence of marijuana or that he had used and/or possessed
marijuana illegally. 1 Id. As he interacted with Mr. Langel, who had exited the
1
Other issues raised in Mr. Langel’s suppression motion and at the
subsequent hearing concerned the legality of his arrest, the search of his person
and the vehicle, and incriminating statements Mr. Langel made to the officers at
the scene, including his comments he swerved as he was throwing a marijuana
(continued...)
-3-
vehicle, Officer Gallegos could smell the distinct odor of marijuana on his person.
Id. While Officer Gallegos continued to interact with Mr. Langel, Officer Gaskill
began a search of the vehicle, where he found a handgun under the front seat. Id.Subsequent information verified Mr. Langel was subject to an arrest warrant and
had a prior felony conviction. Id.Following his arrest, a grand jury indicted Mr. Langel for violating 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which bans convicted felons from possessing a firearm.
Relying on our decision in United States v. Gregory, 79 F.3d 973 (10th Cir.
1996), Mr. Langel filed a motion to suppress the firearm as evidence claiming, in
part, that the officers did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to make
the initial traffic stop because, like the defendant in Gregory, he only
momentarily swerved into the other lane and the Colorado traffic statutes he
violated are similar to the statute violated in Gregory.
The district court held a hearing on the motion, at which time Officer
Gallegos testified as to the circumstances surrounding the traffic stop. Langel,
2007 WL 1229316, at *1. In denying Mr. Langel’s request to exclude the firearm
1
(...continued)
roach out of the window and that he “was done [and] ... going away for a very
long time” after Officer Gaskill found the gun in the car. Id. at **4-5. Because
Mr. Langel has not raised these issues on appeal, we do not address them.
-4-
as evidence, the district court found Officer Gallegos’s testimony to be credible
and cogent and that the officers, based on their personal observation of Mr.
Langel’s erratic driving, had reasonable suspicion as well as probable cause to
stop him for violating Colorado statutes prohibiting a lane change without
ascertaining if it can be made with reasonable safety or using an appropriate lane
change signal. Id. at **1, 4 (relying on C.R.S. §§ 42-4-903(1) and 42-4-
1007(1)(a)). In making this determination, the district court pointed out our
decision in Gregory was both factually and legally distinguishable because it
involved Utah law where we determined the single act of weaving to the right of
the roadway into an emergency lane on a winding road, in mountainous terrain
and windy weather, did not warrant a stop of the defendant. Id. at *4 n.7; see
also Gregory, 79 F.3d at 978. In contrast, the district court explained that in the
instant case, Mr. Langel wove inexplicably into the other lane and the path of
another vehicle without any adverse weather or driving conditions and in
violation of Colorado statutes which implicated more than just a weaving
violation. See Langel, 2007 WL 1229316, at *4 n.7. It then concluded the traffic
stop, which was based on observed traffic violations, was justified at its inception
and valid under the Fourth Amendment. Id. at *4. It also determined the officers,
on witnessing Mr. Langel’s erratic driving and then seeing and smelling
marijuana smoke, had probable cause to arrest him for driving under the influence
of drugs and/or possession and use of marijuana, and that the contemporaneous
-5-
search of his vehicle, at which point the firearm was found, was incident to a
lawful arrest as an exception to the Fourth Amendment. Id. at *4.
Following the district court’s order, Mr. Langel pled guilty to one count of
being a felon in possession of a firearm, subject to the condition he could appeal
the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Thereafter, the district court
sentenced him to fifty-one months imprisonment and three years supervised
release.
II. Discussion
On appeal, Mr. Langel frames the issue as follows:
“It is quite commonplace,” this court has said, “for a driver to drift,
momentarily, from his position within a lane,” and on occasion the
court has declined to authorize a traffic stop solely on the basis of a
single incident of drifting. Mr. Langel, while driving a car, drifted
momentarily from his lane. Was the district court wrong to uphold
his stop?
Apt. Br. at 1. In making this argument, Mr. Langel continues to rely extensively
on our decision in Gregory. In so doing, he admits the distinguishing factors of
high winds and a mountainous road are not present here but claims the holding in
Gregory should apply anyway because the Colorado statutes in violation here are
similar to the Utah statute in that case, and his lane change “could only have been
-6-
three feet or so,” which is similar to the two-foot lane change in Gregory. 2
We review a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence “in the
light most favorable to the government and accept the court’s factual findings
unless clearly erroneous.” United States v. Hanrahan, 508 F.3d 962, 966 (10th
Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Feb. 8, 2008) (No. 07-
9543). In considering such a motion, “[i]t is within the province of the district
court to assess the credibility of witnesses, weigh the evidence, and draw
reasonable inferences therefrom.” Id. In considering the district court’s denial of
a motion to suppress, “[w]e review de novo the ultimate determination of
reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment.” Id. Whether a traffic stop is
constitutional is a two-step inquiry in which we determine if: 1) the officer’s
action is justified at its inception; and 2) the traffic stop was reasonably related in
scope to the circumstances justifying the interference in the first place. See id.Because Mr. Langel does not contest the second part of our inquiry, we look only
to whether the traffic stop was justified at its inception. See id. “A traffic stop is
2
While the record indicates Mr. Langel crossed approximately one foot
over the dotted center line dividing the right westbound lane from the left
westbound lane for one second, it does not indicate the total additional feet Mr.
Langel swerved when he moved further left for another second and straddled the
center line. Nevertheless, even if we accept Mr. Langel’s premise he crossed a
total of three feet, it is insufficient for us to conclude the traffic stop was invalid,
especially when considered with the other evidence which supports the validity of
the stop.
-7-
valid at its inception if the stop is based on an observed traffic violation or if the
police officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that a traffic or equipment
violation has occurred or is occurring.” United States v. Lyons, 510 F.3d 1225,
1234 (10th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks, citation, and alterations omitted).
Applying our standard of review and the principles applicable to a traffic
stop, it is clear the officers had a reasonable articulable suspicion to stop Mr.
Langel for his patent traffic violations which they personally observed and which
occurred in conditions unlike those presented in Gregory. As the district court
pointed out, the circumstances in Gregory differed from those here because it
involved the single act of weaving into an emergency lane on a winding road in
mountainous terrain and windy weather. Here, no such conditions existed.
Nothing about the weather appears to have contributed to Mr. Langel’s erratic
operation of the vehicle and Mr. Langel did not enter into an emergency lane
unoccupied by other vehicles but swerved into another lane of traffic where the
danger of collision with another vehicle existed. His erratic driving occurred not
on a less-traveled mountainous road, but on a major four-lane thoroughfare in
Aurora, Colorado, which is part of a major metropolitan area. It also occurred on
a section of east Colfax known to have a high incidence of alcohol- and drug-
related driving offenses, vehicle accidents, and pedestrian-vehicle accidents.
-8-
Having reviewed the record on appeal, we conclude the district court’s
factual findings are not clearly erroneous and that the circumstances presented are
“sufficient to create a reasonable suspicion that [the driver] of the vehicle might
be sleepy or impaired, and could present a risk of harm to himself and others.”
See United States v. Ozbirn, 189 F.3d 1194, 1199 (10th Cir. 1999). Thus, after
viewing the district court’s denial of Mr. Langel’s motion to suppress in the light
most favorable to the government, we agree a reasonable articulable suspicion
existed for the traffic stop, and therefore the stop was reasonable under the Fourth
Amendment. For these reasons, Mr. Langel’s argument he drifted only one foot
more than the driver in Gregory, or that the Colorado traffic statutes he violated
are similar to the Utah statute at issue in Gregory, are insufficient to establish a
Fourth Amendment violation when considered together with the other
circumstances supporting his traffic stop.
Our determination is bolstered by a plethora of cases distinguishing
Gregory from situations similar to the one presented here, where the road
conditions surrounding the traffic stop were unlike those in Gregory. See, e.g.,
United States v. Valenzuela, 494 F.3d 886, 887, 889 (10th Cir.) (affirming traffic
stop where no outside factors contributed to vehicle drifting into another lane for
three to four feet and several seconds before returning to its lane), cert. denied,
128 S. Ct. 636 (2007); United States v. Alvarado, 430 F.3d 1305, 1306-07, 1309
-9-
(10th Cir. 2005) (affirming traffic stop where no adverse road or weather
conditions caused vehicle to drift out of the right-hand lane and over the fog line
for a few seconds); United States v. Cline, 349 F.3d 1276, 1285-87 (10th Cir.
2003) (upholding stop of motorist who swerved where nothing about the road
conditions would have caused such an action); United States v. Zabalza, 346 F.3d
1255, 1257-58 (10th Cir. 2003) (upholding traffic stop on interstate based on
officer’s observation vehicle crossed center line twice in weather which would not
make it impracticable to maintain a single lane of travel); Ozbirn, 189 F.3d at
1196, 1198-99 (affirming traffic stop based on defendant’s motor home drifting
onto the shoulder twice in less than a quarter mile under optimal weather
conditions); United States v. Dunn, 133 F.3d 933, 1998 WL 8227, at **1-2 (10th
Cir. Jan. 12, 1998) (unpublished op.) (upholding traffic stop where car swerved
out of its lane on fairly straight, non-mountainous interstate with slight grade and
winds less than twenty miles per hour in a car easier to control than the U-Haul
truck driven in Gregory). 3 In distinguishing Gregory from other cases involving a
vehicle drifting or swerving outside its traffic lane, we have explained Gregory
does not establish an absolute standard or bright-line rule on what constitutes a
valid traffic stop but that, like here, all of the surrounding facts and circumstances
3
We rely on this unpublished case given it has persuasive value and
provides reasoned guidance on a like issue. See 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A); United
States v. Samuels, 493 F.3d 1187, 1194 n.9 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct.
815 (2007).
-10-
must be considered to determine if the stop was valid. See Valenzuela, 494 F.3d
at 889; Alvarado, 430 F.3d at 1308; Cline, 349 F.3d at 1286-87; Ozbirn, 189 F.3d
at 1198.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM Mr. Langel’s conviction.
Entered by the Court:
WADE BRORBY
United States Circuit Judge
-11-