COA: Traffic stop resulting in arrest wasn’t unconstitutionally extended

Convictions have been upheld for a man who was driving while suspended after an appellate panel rejected his argument that evidence of his suspension was obtained during an unconstitutional extension of a traffic stop.

While conducting a traffic stop on a vehicle she believed to be driven by a man with a suspended license, Avon Police Department Officer Mercedes Spicer discovered the man driving the truck was not the owner, but allegedly, his cousin.

When Spicer asked the man to provide his driver’s license for confirmation, Edgar Santiago handed her a Mexican identification card instead and told her he did not have a driver’s license. A search of Santiago’s name revealed that his driver’s license had been suspended and that he had a prior conviction for driving while suspended. Consequently, Spicer arrested Santiago and had the vehicle towed.

Santiago was convicted of Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended. He unsuccessfully moved to suppress evidence that his driver’s license was suspended, arguing that the prolonged investigatory stop violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. But neither the trial court nor the Indiana Court of Appeals accepted his argument that the evidence was obtained during an unconstitutional extension of an initially valid traffic stop.

The appellate court also rejected Santiago’s reliance on Holly v. State, finding keys facts distinguished the case from Edgar Santiago v. State of Indiana, 19A-CR-00495.

“Unlike Officer Ross in Holly, whose reasonable suspicion vanished as soon as he saw that the driver was a man and not a woman, Officer Spicer could not immediately determine that Santiago was not Hernandez, the owner of the car,” Judge John G. Baker wrote for the court.  “Officer Spicer’s license plate search of the vehicle in front of her showed that the vehicle was owned by a Latino man named Valentine Hernandez.

“Officer Spicer then stopped the vehicle, approached the driver’s side, and found a Latino man driving the vehicle. Therefore, we hold that it was within the officer’s authority to ask for a driver’s license to confirm Santiago’s identity because it was not immediately apparent that he was not the owner of the vehicle,” the panel wrote.

The appellate court further found that because Spicer did not have conclusive evidence to determine that Santiago was not Hernandez and because she had an obligation to ensure that Santiago could legally drive on Indiana roads, it was not impermissible of her to ask for Santiago’s driver’s license during the stop.

“Therefore, we hold that Officer Spicer’s request to see Santiago’s driver’s license did not unlawfully prolong the initial purpose of the investigatory traffic stop, and consequently, did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the panel concluded.