United States v. Magallon-Lopez, No. 14-30249 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant, convicted of drug trafficking charges, challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the drugs found in his car. Unable to contest the existence of reasonable suspicion, defendant challenges the legality of the stop by contending that the stop violated the Fourth Amendment because the officer who pulled him over deliberately lied when stating the reason for the stop, and the reason the officer gave was not itself supported by reasonable suspicion. The court concluded that so long as the facts known to the officer establish reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop, the stop is lawful even if the officer falsely cites as the basis for the stop a ground that is not supported by reasonable suspicion. In light of the information obtained during the stop, the court concluded that the officers had probable cause to seize defendant's car. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress drugs found in a car that officers stopped and seized based on information learned through wiretap intercepts while investigating an interstate drug-trafficking ring. The defendant, who did not and could not seriously contest the existence of reasonable suspicion for stopping the car, contended that the stop violated the Fourth Amendment because the officer who pulled him over deliberately lied when stating the reason for the stop, and the reason the officer gave was not itself supported by reasonable suspicion. Rejecting this contention, the panel wrote that so long as the facts known to the officer establish reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop, the stop is lawful even if the officer falsely cites as the basis for the stop a ground that is not supported by reasonable suspicion. The panel concluded that in light of the information obtained during the stop, the officers had probable cause to seize the car. Judge Berzon concurred because the line of cases that begins with Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), seems to lead ineluctably to the conclusion that it is fine for police officers to tell drivers that they observed—or thought they observed—a traffic violation when they did not. Noting that the defendant did not make the argument here, Judge UNITED STATES V. MAGALLON-LOPEZ 3 Berzon would not foreclose holding, in another case, that there is a due process based right to be informed of the true basis for a stop or arrest.
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.