With the benefit of additional evidence and briefing, the district court concluded that Mr. Esquivel–Rios's Fourth Amendment rights had indeed been violated but that suppression was not appropriate given the lack of police culpability. United States v. Esquivel–Rios, 39 F.Supp.3d 1175 (D.Kan.2014). Accordingly, the district court denied Mr. Esquivel–Rios's motion to suppress for a second time.
On remand, the trial court heard testimony that the database did not have the relevant information and that the officer in question could not access it. See United States v. Esquivel-Rios , 39 F. Supp. 3d 1175, 1183-84 (D. Kan. 2014), aff'd , 786 F.3d 1299 (10th Cir. 2015). The court therefore "ha[d] no choice but to conclude that the ‘negatory on record, not returning’ report that dispatch provided ... did not qualify as particularized evidence that the vehicle was not properly registered."