United States v. Ovando-Garzo, No. 13-3437 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pleaded guilty to one count of reentry after removal. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence of his identity obtained during a traffic stop. Because the court concluded that the trooper did not unreasonably prolong the traffic stop, it was unnecessary to consider whether he had reasonable suspicion to continue the investigation or whether suppression of the identity evidence obtained was an appropriate remedy under these circumstances. The traffic stop occurred five miles from the nearest town in freezing temperatures and neither passenger had a valid driver's license. No written agreement is required for a state official to cooperate with the Attorney General in identifying, apprehending, and detaining any individual unlawfully present in the United States. In this case, the trooper's acts did not exceed the scope of his authority. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. The state trooper's questions to defendant were within the lawful scope of the traffic stop as the trooper needed to determine what to do with defendant's truck and his passengers in light of the severe weather, the remoteness of the location and the passengers' lack of drivers' licenses, and defendant's statements were admissible; no written agreement is required for a state official, such as the trooper, to cooperate with the Attorney General in identifying, apprehending and detaining an individual unlawfully present in the U.S.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.