Opinion
Case No. 99-CR-123 W.
May 1, 2000
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendant, Larry Patron, was indicted on one count of possession of 100 grams or more of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (File Entry #16). The defendant made a motion to suppress contending evidence was illegally seized from his person and from the automobile he was driving (File Entry #35). Defendant challenged the stop of his vehicle, his detention, the consent to search and statements obtained from him (Id.). The United States filed a response (File Entry #39). No statements were obtained from defendant and that issue is deemed abandoned. Also, no challenge is made to the stop.
The case was referred to the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). A hearing was held on the motion to suppress. The defendant requested a supplemental hearing on the motion to suppress (File Entry #51). However, thereafter defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charge (File Entry #57). Thereafter, the defendant made a motion to withdraw his guilty plea (File Entry #63). The District Court granted defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (File Entries #67-68). Defendant's counsel withdrew and new counsel appeared.
Thereafter, a memorandum was filed by defendant in support of his motion to suppress (File Entry #75). The government then submitted a response memorandum (File Entry #76). Defendant submitted a reply memorandum (File Entry #77). Arguments were heard on the motion. A supplemental memorandum was submitted by defendant at the request of the court (File Entry #80). The United States also filed a response on March 21, 2000 (File Entry #81).
EVIDENCE
Blake Gardner, Deputy Sheriff Emery County, Utah testified that on March 17, 1999 he was assigned to patrol on I-70. He had been a deputy sheriff for nineteen years and had 400 hours of narcotics interdiction training and eight years experience in drug interdiction (Tr. pp. 6-7). On March 17, 1999 the officer was on patrol on I-70 at about 3:50 p.m. His vehicle had radar and a video unit (Tr. pp. 7-8). At milepost 155 near Green River, Utah the officer observed a red Buick Century traveling fast and passing other vehicles (Tr. pp. 9-10). It was checked by radar and it was going 91 mph in a 75 mph zone (Tr. p. 10). It was traveling eastbound. The officer noticed two occupants in the vehicle and stopped the vehicle for speeding. The driver was male (Id.). It was the defendant Larry Paul Patron and the vehicle had Minnesota plates (Tr. p. 11). The officer told the driver why the stop was made and the officer asked for a driver's license and vehicle registration (Id.). The driver's license was in Larry Patron's name. A rental agreement was produced showing a rental agreement to one Gene Sanchez (Tr. p. 12, Exhibit I). The document had two sides (Tr. p. 13). The officer had defendant exit the vehicle and asked him who had rented the vehicle. No other authorized driver was listed on the rental agreement. The only other authorized person was the individual who had rented the vehicle (Tr. p. 14). Defendant identified the passenger as his brother Michael (Id.). The officer explained he was going to contact the rental company to see if defendant was an authorized driver (Tr. p. 15). The officer contacted his dispatch. The officer returned to his vehicle to issue a citation (Tr. p. 16). The defendant returned to his vehicle.
The officer asked for a license check on defendant's California driver's license (Id.). The officer was advised the license was suspended or revoked in California. The officer returned to the vehicle and asked the passengers if they had a license. Michael provided a Colorado identification card but had no driver's license (Tr. p. 17). The officer asked where they were going and Michael said Colorado Springs (Tr. p. 18). He said they had been to California to a wedding. He said they had driven from California to Las Vegas and then into Utah and were going to Colorado (Tr. p. 19). Defendant's girlfriend, Lorraine Avena, was also present in the vehicle with a nine-month old child (Tr. p. 20). The officer thought there were discrepancies in the statements given by defendant Larry Patron and his brother about their travel. The officer made a computer record check (Triple I) on the two brothers (Tr. p. 21). The Triple I reported no one was wanted but defendant and Michael had criminal records for trafficking narcotics (Tr. p. 22).
The officer then received a communication from the rental company that the two suspects were not authorized to have the vehicle and requested the officer to impound the vehicle for the rental company (Tr. p. 22). Defendant nor the other occupants were listed on the rental agreement. The reasons for the impound were stated to defendant. A citation was given to defendant and he was advised it could be taken care of by mail. The officer also advised the defendant and occupants that they would not be kicked out on the road and they would be taken to a bus stop were they could go on to their destination (Tr. p. 23). The officer then asked defendant if there were any illegal substances or weapons in the vehicle and asked for permission to search the vehicle (Tr. p. 23). Marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin were specifically mentioned by the officer. It was the officer's intent to impound the vehicle and it was the policy of the Emery County Sheriff's office to do an inventory of the impounded vehicle (Tr. p. 24). All containers and packages in the vehicle at impound are to be examined (Tr. p. 25).
Defendant, Larry Patron, stated that the officer could search the vehicle (Tr. p. 25). The other male occupant, Michael Patron, was asked the same questions, denied that any illegal substances were in the vehicle, and consented to the search of the vehicle. (Id.). The officer called for backup (Tr. pp. 25-26). The vehicle occupants were asked to step out of the vehicle, they were checked for weapons, and backup officers arrived (Id.). Marijuana cigarettes were found in a bag in a box marked "Stoned Again" on it. The female passenger said a cousin had left the cigarettes in the bag (Tr. p. 27). Also, two loaded semi-automatic pistols were found. In the trunk rolling papers and a glass pipe were found and in the console a glass pipe used to smoke methamphetamine was located (Tr. pp. 27-28).
Underneath the cowling of the vehicle, down by the heater motor, between the firewall and dashboard, five packages of suspected narcotics were found. They were wrapped in black plastic tape (Tr. pp. 28-29). The defendant was arrested, with the others, and transported to the sheriff's office in Green River and the car taken to Green River (Tr. p. 30). The vehicle was further searched and other paraphernalia and drugs were found. One of the packages was field tested and was positive for marijuana (Tr. pp. 30-31).
Defendant Larry Patron was interrogated at the Sheriff's office in Castledale by Officer Gardner (Tr. p. 31). However, upon defendant being advised of his rights he requested an attorney (Tr. p. 32) and no further interrogation ensued. The videotape of the vehicle stop and encounter is Exhibit 2 (Tr. p. 35).
Officer Gardner does not use a profile with reference to narcotics interdiction (Tr. p. 36). The rental agreement in the vehicle from Avis listed Gene Sanchez of Colorado Springs as the renter. Avis rented the vehicle to Sanchez in Colorado Springs on March 12, 1999. The rental expired March 19, 1999 (Exhibit I). The agreement provided no one else but the renter could drive the vehicle except a spouse, a regular fellow employee incidental to business use, or someone who appeared at the time of rental and signed the additional driver form. Such person had to be a licensed driver. An additional charge would be made for each additional driver. No such charge is on the Avis rental agreement (Exhibit I). On receipt of notice of the revocation of defendant's driver's license, the officer contacted Avis through the dispatch (Tr. p. 40). Avis was advised that no one in the vehicle had a valid license (Tr. p. 41). Larry Patron was advised the vehicle was being seized because he was not a licensed driver and Avis wanted the vehicle impounded (Tr. p. 42). The requested search was only as to the vehicle, not defendant's person (Tr. p. 44).
There was a long conversation as to the whereabouts or identity of the person who rented the vehicle. Larry Patron said his cousin rented the vehicle (Id.). The entire stop lasted about one hour. Officer Gardner did not smell an odor of drugs or alcohol (Tr. pp. 55-58). Other officers arrived during the search. The defendant was asked to stand to the side of the road and did so (Tr. pp. 60-63). The officer asked defendant, before the search, if there were any large amounts of money, weapons, marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, or heroin in the vehicle. He said there was none. The officer asked if he could search the vehicle and defendant said the officer could search. The same questions were asked of the passenger, Michael Patron, and he nodded his head affirmatively (Tr. p. 65).
Defendant, Larry Patron, testified that at the time of the stop he was living in Colorado Springs, Colorado (Tr. p. 70). He took a trip to Indio, California to a wedding. He had his cousin Gene Sanchez rent the vehicle, he had a credit card (Tr. p. 71). He went with his cousin to get the car, defendant's cousin Gene Sanchez actually rented the car. Defendant paid Sanchez for the rental with cash. Larry Patron said he rented with Gene Sanchez (Tr. pp. 72-73).
Exhibit I reflects that payment was made by Club VISA and a driver's license was provided. Defendant testified Gene Sanchez resided on a street, Glendale Circle, Exhibit I reflects it was "Garland Court." Defendant changed his testimony on cross-examination to "Garland."
Sanchez told Avis that defendant would be driving, but Avis did not pass for Patron's license or credit card. He didn't sign anything. Patron received no paper from Avis (Tr. p. 73). The circumstances of the encounter with Officer Gardner was friendly (Tr. p. 75).
The audio/video of the encounter (Exhibit 2) shows the defendant's vehicle was stopped in a rural area at 15:51 hours on March 17, 1999. Officer Gardner approached the vehicle and asked defendant Patron for a license and registration. Patron provided the officer a California driver's license and a Colorado rental agreement. The officer asked defendant to step out of the vehicle and step back between defendant's vehicle and the patrol vehicle. The officer asked about the defendant's travel itinerary and stated that there was no authorization for Patron to have the vehicle under the rental agreement. Defendant said the vehicle lessee was Gene Sanchez, Patron's cousin. The vehicle had been rented on his credit card and the vehicle given to defendant. The occupants were defendant's brother Michael and defendant's girlfriend and her baby.
The officer advised defendant he was stopped for speeding, going 91 in a 75 mph zone. Patron said he had been to California and was on his way back. He had been to a relative's wedding and they had stopped in Las Vegas and they were on their way back to Colorado Springs. The officer advised that he would call the rental company to determine if Patron was properly in possession of the vehicle. The officer had Patron get back in the vehicle and the officer went to his vehicle and contacted his dispatch. He called for a records check on defendant's license, his brother Michael's identification, and asked dispatch to contact Avis car rental about the vehicle. At 16:03 it was reported that Patron's California license had been suspended or revoked. Neither Michael or defendant's girlfriend had a driver's license. Avis had asked if defendant Larry Patron was a business associate of the renter. He was not. The officer asked for a Triple I records check for the Patrons' criminal history.
At 16:13 the officer gave Michael Patron's identification back to him and gave a citation to Larry Patron for speeding and driving on a revoked license. The officer informed Patron of the time to respond and what to do if the California license record was not accurate. Defendant told the officer that he had taken care of his license problem in California. The officer advised Patron that no one in the vehicle had a license and if the car rental company wanted the vehicle it would be held but defendant and other occupants would be taken to a rest station for transportation to their destination. There was chit-chat about travel and other matters while waiting for a response from Avis car rental. It was necessary to check numbers on the keys so that Avis could make an evaluation. A report on Triple I came back indicating a 1035 (drug offenses) on Larry Patron and his brother Michael. The officer inquired as to their criminal record, each gave a record other than that reported by Triple I.
Avis responded that Larry Patron did not have lawful permission to possess the vehicle and asked that it be impounded.
The officer then asked Larry Patron whether there were guns, drugs, or a large amount of money in the vehicle. Specific drugs were mentioned and Larry Patron denied the presence of such items in the vehicle. The officer asked Larry Patron if the officer could search the vehicle and Patron said yes. The same general questions were put to Michael Patron and he also consented to the search of the vehicle. Four backup officers had arrived and the occupants were moved to the side of the road area away from traffic.
A search turned up two loaded firearms and various drugs. The defendant Larry Patron was arrested.
Based on the above evidence, the court enters the following.
Findings of Fact
1. On March 17, 1999, Emery County Deputy Sheriff Blake Gardner was on routine traffic patrol on I-70 in Utah. He clocked defendant's vehicle traveling 91 mph in a 75 mph zone. He stopped the vehicle. Defendant Larry Patron was the driver, his brother and Larry's girlfriend and her baby were occupants of the vehicle. This was at about 3:51 p.m. the area was rural and Green River, Utah is the nearest town.
2. Officer Gardner approached the driver and asked defendant Larry Patron for a driver's license and registration. Larry Patron provided the officer with a California driver's license and a rental agreement for the vehicle from Avis rental car company in Colorado Springs. The defendant said they had been to a wedding of a relative in California and were returning to Colorado Springs where they lived. The rental agreement from Avis listed the renter as Gene Sanchez and Larry Patron said he was his cousin. The rental agreement did not list Larry Patron or any other person as an authorized driver and required such other person, if authorized, to sign a special form and be present at the rental of the vehicle and an additional charge would be made. Defendant Patron did not sign the necessary form or rent the vehicle. He was not authorized to possess the vehicle.
3. The officer advised defendant that the officer was going to contact Avis to see if defendant was authorized to have the vehicle. The officer returned to his vehicle to issue a citation, contact dispatch for a license check on defendant's California license and ask dispatch to contact Avis to see the status of the vehicle. The officer was advised that defendant Larry Patron's California driver's license had been revoked or suspended. No other occupant had a driver's license and no one could lawfully drive the vehicle. Defendant and the other occupants were going to Colorado Springs.
4. Officer Gardner asked dispatch for a Triple I criminal history check on defendant and his brother Michael. The report was that both defendants had criminal history records for drug trafficking offenses. The defendant was asked whether he had been arrested, but he did not mention the drug offense. The officer received inquiry from Avis car rental as to whether the driver was a business employee of the lessee, if there was no such indication and Avis was advised the driver claimed to be a relative, Avis directed the vehicle be picked up and impounded for Avis. Defendant was given a citation and told the reasons for the impound. The defendant was advised that he and the occupants would be taken to a bus station where they could go to their destination. The place of the stop is in a remote area of Eastern Utah on I-70. The closest town was Green River, and the driver and occupants could not walk or hitchhike on the freeway.
5. Officer Gardner then asked Larry Patron if there were illegal substances, firearms or large amounts of cash in the vehicle. Larry Patron replied, no. The officer then enumerated marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin, and Patron again said no. The officer intended to impound the vehicle at the rental car company's request and pursuant to Emery County Sheriff's office policy, examined all packages. The officer asked Patron if the officer could search the vehicle and Larry Patron said, yes. The officer then went to Michael Patron and asked the same question and received negative answers. The officer asked permission to search the vehicle from Michael Patron who consented to the search. Occupants were then moved to the side of the road. No force was employed, nor any threat or coercion. The atmosphere was relaxed and cordial. The consent was voluntary.
6. A search of the vehicle produced two firearms containing ammunition. Drugs and drug paraphernalia was found and the Patrons were arrested.
DISCUSSION
STANDING
The government contends that Larry Patron lacked standing to contest the search of the vehicle. That claim places the burden of proof on the defendant to establish standing to contest the vehicle search. United States v. Dewitt, 946 F.2d 1497 (10th Cir. 1991). See also United States v. Arango, 912 F.2d 441 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Gama-Bastidas, 142 F.3d 1233, 1239 (10th Cir. 1998); United States v. Canley, 130 F.3d 1371, 1377 (10th Cir. 1997); United States v. Angulo-Fernandez, 53 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 1995); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978).
In this case the vehicle was rented to a person other then the defendant, one Gene Sanchez. No other person was an authorized driver. Gene Sanchez was not present in the vehicle. The rental agreement (Exhibit I) expressly provided ( ¶ 17) that only a spouse or a regular fellow employee could drive the vehicle. Any other driver had to be of legal age, validly licensed, and had to appear at the time of rental and sign an additional driver form. Permission from Avis was required. The defendant Larry Patron was not a spouse or employee of Gene Sanchez, but a relative if any relationship at all. Defendant did not sign as an additional driver and no additional charge was imposed. Defendant was not validly licensed. Apparently, Sanchez rented the vehicle and illegally turned it over to Patron, but Sanchez had no lawful authority to do so. The cases from the Tenth Circuit fully support the conclusion that an unauthorized driver of a rental vehicle has no standing to contest a search of the vehicle. Recently, in United States v. Gama-Vastidas, 142 F.3d 1233, 1239 (10th Cir. 1998) neither the defendant nor the driver was an authorized driver under a rental car lease. The court concluded the defendant had no standing.
Defendant has not presented any evidence sufficient to meet his burden of proving that the challenged search of the vehicle and the subsequent seizure of cocaine violated his Fourth Amendment rights. We conclude that Defendant does not have standing to challenge the searches of the Dodge Neon. Therefore, we do not examine the constitutionality of the warrantless searches of the vehicle.142 F.3d p. 1239.
This has been the conclusion in other cases as well. United States v. Obregon,748 F.2d 1371, 1374-75 (10th Cir. 1984) (unauthorized driver of a rental vehicle has no standing to contest a search); United States v. Martinez, 983 F.2d 968,973 (10th Cir. 1992); United States v. Jones, 44 F.3d 860, 871 (10th Cir. 1995) (driver of a vehicle rented by a third person has no standing to contest the search of the vehicle for contraband where the driver was not authorized to use the vehicle by the rental company). Also, United States v. Shareef, 100 F.3d 1491, 1499 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Dunn, 133 F.3d 933 (10th Cir. 1998) (unpublished table), 1998 WL 8227 p. 2.
In addition, the vehicle was a stolen vehicle. Defendant's cousin rented the vehicle to turn it over to the defendant. This is a class five felony in Colorado under Colo. Rev.ST 18-4-402(1)(a) which provides:
"A person commits theft of rental property if he:
Obtains the temporary use of personal property of another, which is available only for hire, by means of deception, or knowing that such use is without the consent of the person providing the personal property."
Defendant Larry Patron knew he did not have the consent of Avis to obtain the property. Patron's description of getting the property shows it was not authorized. Therefore, there was probable cause to believe the vehicle was stolen under Colorado law.
A person can have no expectation of privacy in a stolen vehicle. United States v. Miller, 84 F.3d 1244,1249 (10th Cir. 1996) (stolen vehicle, no registration); United States v. Betancur, 24 F.3d 73, 76-77 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Tropiano, 50 F.3d 157,161 (2nd Cir. 1995) (cases cited).
Defendant has no standing to challenge the search of the vehicle since he had no expectation of privacy in the vehicle.
DETENTION
A person operating a vehicle who does not have standing to contest the search of the vehicle may still have standing to contest a stop or detention of the person in the vehicle. United States v. Eylicio-Montoya, 70 F.3d 1158,1162 (10th Cir. 1995); United States v. Erwin, 875 F.2d 268, 271 (10th Cir. 1989). This position is based on a theory of exclusion of the fruits of any illegal stop or detention, United States v. Shareef, supra, 100 F.3d at 1500; United States v. Miller, 84 F.3d 1244, 1250 (10th Cir. 1996).
Recently, in a case out of this district, the Tenth Circuit stated the standard. In United States v. Ramirez, ___ F.3d ___, 2000 W L 368399 (10th Cir. 2000) (slip Op. 5):
This court has repeatedly recognized that although a defendant may lack the requisite possessory or ownership interest in a vehicle to directly challenge a search of that vehicle, the defendant may nonetheless contest the lawfulness of his own detention and seek to suppress evidence found in the vehicle as the fruit of the illegal detention. See United States v. Shareef, 100 F.3d 1491, 1500 (10th Cir. 1996); Eylicio-Montoya, 70 F.3d at 1162. To successfully suppress evidence as the fruit of an unlawful detention, a defendant must first establish that the detention did violate his Fourth Amendment rights. See Shareef, 100 F.3d at 1500. The defendant then bears the burden of demonstrating "a factual nexus between the illegality and the challenged evidence." United States v. Kandik, 633 F.2d 1334, 1335 (9th Cir. 1980). Only if the defendant has made these two showings must the government prove that the evidence sought to be suppressed is not "fruit of the poisonous tree," either by demonstrating the evidence would have been inevitably discovered, was discovered through independent means, or was so attenuated from the illegality as to dissipate the taint of the unlawful conduct. See id. (placing this burden of proof on the government); United States v. Romero, 692 F.2d 699, 704 (10th Cir. 1982) (recognizing the inevitable discovery, independent means, and attentuation doctrines).
Defendant Patron does not challenge the vehicle stop.
The circumstances of defendant Larry Patron's detention are that a valid vehicle stop was made and inquiries made by the officer that were based on the stop. In United States v. Gonzalez-Lerma, 14 F.3d 1479, 1483 (10th Cir. 1994), the court observed:
An officer conducting a routine traffic stop may request a driver's license and vehicle registration, run a computer check, and issue a citation. When the driver has produced a valid license and proof that he is entitled to operate the car, he must be allowed to proceed on his way, without being subject to further delay by police for additional questioning.
See also United States v. Walker, 941 F.2d 1086 (10th Cir. 1991). An officer may, in the course of running a computer check, obtain a Triple I criminal history on the driver. United States v. Woods, 106 F.3d 942 (10th Cir. 1997); United States v. McRae, 81 F.3d 1528, 1535, n. 6 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Recalde, 761 F.2d 1448, 1455 (10th Cir. 1985) (NCIC check concurrently with traffic stop is proper). Thus, both an National Crime Information Center (NCIC) check and Triple I computer check are proper. Id. Routine questions about travel plans may be asked without exceeding the scope of a traffic stop. United States v. Hernandez, 93 F.3d 1493, 1499 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Gonzalez-Lerma, supra, p. 1484; United States v. Turner, 928 F.2d 956, 958-59 (10th Cir. 1991). The defendant did not have a right to lawfully operate the vehicle on a highway in Utah. Utah Code Ann.§ 41-12a-603. His operation of the vehicle without a license was an additional Class C misdemeanor, Id.; 53-3-202,204, 219 (XIII), Utah Code Ann. The vehicle was subject to impound under Utah law. § 41-1a-1101(f) Utah Code Ann. See United States v. Rios, 88 F.3d 867 (10th Cir. 1996) (recognizing a vehicle without proper registration may be impounded under Utah law). In United States v. Fernandez, 18 F.3d 874, 879 (10th Cir. 1994) it was said ". . . defendant's lack of a valid registration, license, bill of sale, or some other indicia of proof to lawfully operate and possess the vehicle in question [gives] rise to objectively reasonable suspicion the vehicle may be stolen"; see also Miller, supra, 84 F.3d at p. 1251.
In addition, the rental agreement and Larry Patron's story to the officer supports a conclusion that the vehicle was possessed by Patron in violation of Colorado law and was a stolen rental vehicle. Colo.Rev. St.18-4-402(1)(a). Officer Gardner could seize the vehicle under such circumstances. Utah Code Ann. § 41-1a-1101. He had the direction of the vehicle owner to do so and properly contacted the owner when defendant nor any other occupant could show the right to possession of the vehicle. The officer clearly had reasonable suspicion to continue to question defendant. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968); Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996); United States v. Soto, supra; United States v. Martinez, supra. The standard is an objective standard and not the officer's subjective assessment. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996). The officer was reasonably pursuing resolution of whether defendant had a right to possess the vehicle. United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985).
Further, defendant and the other occupants were to be taken to a bus station to go on their way. They could not walk to Green River or hitchhike there. The officer's actions were reasonable within the Fourth Amendment.
In United States v. Galindo-Gonzales, 142 F.3d 1217, 1223 (10th Cir. 1998) the court held that detention was justified when the vehicle driver was unable to produce proper documentation showing a right to operate the vehicle. Since there was objective evidence, Whren, supra, the vehicle could not be operated by defendant and may be stolen and subject to impound and that defendant had committed two misdemeanors for which he could be arrested, defendant's detention was proper and reasonable within the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Ochoa-Zaragoza, ___ F.3d ___, 2000 WL 192842 (10th Cir. 2000) (unpublished) p. 3. Therefore, no evidence was obtained from any illegal detention. Shareef, supra.
CONSENT SEARCH
The defendant has no standing to contest the search of the vehicle. Rahas, supra; Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (1980). The consent issue is irrelevant since there was no illegal detention of defendant.
INEVITABLE DISCOVERY
The United States contends the inevitable discovery doctrine would apply in this case if the evidence obtained from the vehicle would be admissible even if the original search was illegal. Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984). This is based on the position that the inventory of the vehicle, made under standard impound policy of the Emery County Sheriff's office would have disclosed the drugs and guns. United States v. Haro-Salcedo, 107 F.3d 769 (10th Cir. 1997) (impound under Utah law warranted upholding use of evidence where there had been a prior illegal seizure). United States v. Blaze, 143 F.3d 585 (10th Cir. 1998). However, it is unnecessary to address this matter because the defendant was never illegally detained.
CONCLUSION
The defendant Larry Patron's motion to suppress should be DENIED.
Copies of the foregoing Report and Recommendation are being mailed to the parties who are hereby notified of their right to object to the same. The parties are further notified that they must file objections to the Report and Recommendation, with the clerk of the court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), within ten (10) days after receiving it. Failure to file objections may constitute a waiver of those objections on subsequent appellate review.