United States v. Ambriz-Villa, No. 21-1362 (7th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Dash-cam video footage and testimony from Illinois State Trooper Payton indicated that Payton, specially trained in drug interdiction, made observations about Ambriz-Villa’s car which led him to suspect drug trafficking. When Ambriz-Villa’s car crossed onto the road’s shoulder, Payton executed a traffic stop. While processing a warning ticket, Payton questioned Ambriz-Villa. Ambriz-Villa’s unusual responses and excessively nervous and evasive reactions raised Payton’s suspicion. Payton handed Ambriz-Villa the warning ticket. Ambriz-Villa opened the door and began to exit the patrol car. With Ambriz-Villa “halfway out the door,” Payton asked, “Do you mind if I ask you a few more questions?” Ambriz-Villa agreed. Payton then asked whether he was involved in any drug activity (which Ambriz-Villa denied) and if he would consent to a search of his car. Ambriz-Villa said yes. Payton asked, “for clarification.” Ambriz-Villa confirmed that he consented to the search of his car. The search uncovered 13 packages of methamphetamine.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Ambriz-Villa’s motion to suppress, his conviction under 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); (b)(1)(A) and within-Guidelines 168-month sentence. The scope of the stop was not unreasonable and did not violate Ambriz-Villa’s Fourth Amendment rights. Payton’s tone and behavior did not suggest coercion; Ambriz-Villa’s consent was voluntary because a reasonable person in his position would feel at liberty to disregard the questions and walk away.”
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.