The federal appeals court based in Denver agreed on Monday that a state trooper lacked reasonable suspicion to investigate a motorist for drug trafficking – based on little more than the driver’s messy vehicle, plans to visit a religious center and being “overly cooperative.”

Although Trooper Shane Gosnell ended up being correct that Luis Alfonso Leon was transporting more than 75 pounds of methamphetamine in his pickup truck, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled that Gosnell obtained the evidence as the result of a constitutional violation.

At the time Gosnell pulled Leon over in Mesa County along Interstate 70, he was investigating a traffic violation. Under the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, law enforcement may not extend a traffic stop beyond its purpose without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

The list of factors that gave Gosnell reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking – from Leon’s alleged nervousness to the luggage and food wrappers in his vehicle – were not enough, the 10th Circuit concluded.

“First, food wrappers and drink containers are items you would find in any vehicle on a road trip,” wrote Senior Judge Stephanie K. Seymour in the panel’s Sept. 11 opinion. Moreover, “most motorists experience some degree of nervousness when stopped by police.”

The panel determined the evidence Gosnell obtained after improperly extending the traffic stop should have been excluded from Leon’s criminal case. Consequently, it overturned Leon’s federal drug conviction and 70-month sentence.

Case: United States v. Leon

Decided: September 11, 2023

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for Colorado

Ruling: 3-0

Judges: Stephanie K. Seymour (author)

Harris L Hartz

Scott M. Matheson Jr.

Background: State Supreme Court finds Mesa County trooper conducted unlawful search – again

The legality of some troopers’ conduct in Mesa County has previously come under scrutiny from Colorado’s appellate courts. Last year, the state’s Court of Appeals ordered a new trial because Gosnell testified about the profiling technique he used to apprehend a drug trafficker, and those comments inappropriately “prime(d) the jury.”

Separately, the Colorado Supreme Court twice found Trooper Christian Bollen performed unreasonable vehicle searches when trying to uncover drug traffickers in that same area.

In Leon’s case, Gosnell pulled him over on I-70 after seeing Leon improperly traveling in the passing lane. He became suspicious of Leon based on a variety of observations, then asked Leon for the vehicle’s mileage. A high mileage within a short window, to Gosnell, indicated a vehicle’s use in drug trafficking.

After Gosnell completed the traffic stop, he asked Leon if he could search the vehicle. Leon declined, but Gosnell called for a drug-detection dog. The dog alerted officers to 64 packages of methamphetamine in the pickup truck.

Federal prosecutors indicted Leon on charges of possessing a controlled substance with the intent to distribute. Leon attempted to exclude the evidence from the traffic stop at trial. At the point Gosnell veered away from addressing the traffic violation – when he asked for the vehicle’s mileage – he had no reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking, Leon argued.

Although Leon did not prevail, a judge ultimately dismissed the original case because the government violated his right to a speedy trial. Prosecutors indicted Leon again and a new judge, U.S. District Court Senior Judge Christine M. Arguello, heard Leon’s motion to exclude evidence a second time.

She determined Gosnell had reasonable suspicion based on what the trooper observed prior to asking about the mileage:

? Leon was traveling from Arizona, “known to be a drug hub,” to Minnesota, another drug hub

? Leon was “unsure how long he was going to be in Denver” and had “vague reasons” for being there

? He made “inconsistent statements” about where he was living

? The vehicle’s interior was messy

? Leon was nervous

On appeal to the 10th Circuit, Leon disputed those factors were suspicious. He noted that he told Gosnell specifically why he was going to Denver – to pick up religious books at the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Leon was also clear that he was from Arizona but was transitioning to Minnesota.

“Law-enforcement officers have characterized almost every state (and city) in the United States as a drug source or destination or both,” wrote public defender Bretta Pirie in critiquing Gosnell’s suspicions of Leon’s travel route.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael C. Johnson countered that Leon demonstrated “evasiveness” when he allegedly refused to disclose his final destination to Gosnell. But the 10th Circuit panel pointed out Gosnell had specifically asked where Leon was going “that day.”

“He wasn’t gonna go to Minnesota that day,” said Judge Scott M. Matheson Jr. at oral arguments. “And the officer never really asked him what the final destination was going to be.”

The 10th Circuit addressed each reason Arguello had cited to establish reasonable suspicion and found all to be insufficient. Leon’s travel plans were “unusual,” but not improbable, Seymour wrote. There was no question the pickup was his vehicle. And, contrary to Arguello’s view, Leon “did not actually make an inconsistent statement,” observed Seymour.

Although Arguello found it suspicious that Leon “did not know the name of the person from which he bought the vehicle,” the panel discovered that was not what the video of the encounter depicted.

As for Leon’s demeanor, which Gosnell characterized as “overly cooperative” and nervous, “Mr. Leon exhibited no physical manifestations of extreme nervousness,” Seymour concluded.

The case is United States v. Leon.