A federal judge barred evidence from a pat-down search from being used against a defendant on Monday, concluding a Sterling police officer violated the man’s rights by searching him without a legal basis.

Federal prosecutors indicted Jorge Sigala-Baray for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Police discovered the gun on Sigala-Baray after pulling him over for a broken tail lamp. The arresting officer noted Sigala-Baray seemed “overly nice” and it was “common knowledge” he may have a gun.

However, U.S. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang ticked through the list of factors that allegedly gave Corporal Kyle Taylor grounds to believe Sigala-Baray was armed and dangerous at the time Taylor patted him down for weapons. After determining each of the factors was vague, unsubstantiated or not actually suspicious, she concluded the pat-down violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches. 

“The Government’s position essentially boils down to this: a suspect with a reputation can always be frisked. But the Fourth Amendment does not provide carte blanche to search a felon,” Wang wrote in a June 9 order, “simply based on that criminal history or involvement.”

Taylor pulled over Sigala-Baray one evening in August 2024 after noticing a broken tail lamp. The passenger, who said the car was hers, was aware of the defect and searched for insurance documentation. Taylor and Sigala-Baray, who knew each other, made small talk.

“No guns on you today, right?” Taylor asked.

“No, come on, bro,” responded Sigala-Baray. “I’m just a dad now.”

The passenger gave an insurance document to Taylor, who went back to his patrol vehicle to check the information. At some point, because of a mistake in transmitting the license plate number, Taylor heard from dispatch that the plate did not match the vehicle registration on the car Sigala-Baray was driving. In reality, there was nothing amiss about the registration.

Taylor once again approached the vehicle and said the insurance document did not match. He asked if there was any other documentation. The passenger began looking, but Taylor asked the occupants to step out.

Promptly, Taylor frisked Sigala-Baray “because you’ve been known to carry weapons.” Taylor found a gun in Sigala-Baray’s waistband. Prosecutors then indicted Sigala-Baray for the prohibited possession of a firearm.

The defense moved to exclude the evidence from trial, alleging a Fourth Amendment violation. Specifically, Taylor needed to have reasonable suspicion Sigala-Baray was armed and dangerous at the time of the search.

The government responded by pointing out Colorado law requires drivers to show insurance, and Taylor could have arrested and searched Sigala-Baray for that offense. Regardless, Taylor came into the encounter knowing:

• Sigala-Baray allegedly beat up a man with a gun in June 2024

• Sigala-Baray was friendlier than usual during the stop

• Sigala-Baray carried firearms

• Sigala-Baray had been involved in a fight where a gun “went flying” from him

The defense disputed those claims, noting Taylor himself had responded to the 2024 incident and found no evidence the alleged victim’s story was truthful. Moreover, the failure to provide insurance immediately did not give rise to an arrestable offense.

“This situation is analogous to a driver who, when ordered to lower their window during a traffic stop, accidentally presses the wrong button and lowers the back windows instead of the front. No reasonable officer would claim probable cause to arrest that driver for failure to comply with a lawful order when their attempt to comply is ongoing,” wrote public defender Jennifer Beck.

After hearing testimony and watching video of the encounter, Wang sided with the defense.

She first agreed there was no probable cause to arrest Sigala-Baray for his passenger’s failure to locate the documents in the approximately two minutes Taylor had given her overall.

“At no time did Corporal Taylor suggest that he was concerned about the time it was taking (the passenger) to find proof of insurance or that he was contemplating arresting Mr. Sigala-Baray — who was clearly not the owner of the car — for lack of insurance,” Wang wrote.

Turning to the factors that allegedly gave Taylor reason to believe Sigala-Baray was armed and dangerous, Wang found them to be lacking.

As for the claim Sigala-Baray pistol-whipped a man earlier in 2024, Taylor had responded to that incident and noted at the time there was no corroboration of the alleged victim’s story. Further, the incident in which a gun “went flying” from Sigala-Baray was based on speculation — and Sigala-Baray was actually the victim.

Regarding Sigala-Baray’s “friendliness,” the video showed “Mr. Sigala-Baray simply exchanged pleasantries and small talk with Corporal Taylor,” Wang noted. Moreover, Taylor admitted Sigala-Baray was similarly polite and compliant during their one prior interaction.

Finally, to Taylor’s alleged knowledge that Sigala-Baray reportedly carried a gun, there was no “particularized information about what was known to him about Mr. Sigala-Baray’s supposed carrying of weapons. And again, in Corporal Taylor’s one prior law enforcement interaction with Mr. Sigala-Baray, Defendant was not armed,” Wang continued.

Therefore, she concluded, the evidence that Sigala-Baray was armed and dangerous at the time Taylor patted him down consisted of “a serious of unparticularized hunches that, even taken together, are still just hunches.”

The case is United States v. Sigala-Baray.