The Denver-based federal appeals court disagreed on Tuesday with a trial judge’s decision to bar evidence from a pat-down search from being used against a defendant.

Federal prosecutors obtained an indictment of 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.

Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang concluded the pat-down violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches. Among other things, she found probable cause did not exist to arrest Sigala-Baray or his passenger after they could not locate the vehicle’s insurance within two minutes of being asked.

But a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit believed an officer could reasonably think Sigala-Baray violated the Colorado law requiring vehicle operators to present “immediate evidence” of insurance.

“We conclude that a reasonable officer would believe that Defendant had not and could not present proof of insurance at the time of the search. This is sufficient for probable cause under the statute,” wrote Judge Joel M. Carson III in the Sept. 1 order.

Cpl. Kyle 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.

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, for which prosecutors indicted him.

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 that Colorado law requires drivers to show proof of insurance, and that Taylor could have arrested and searched Sigala-Baray for that offense.

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

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

“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.

Wang also decided the other factors that allegedly gave Taylor grounds to believe Sigala-Baray was armed and dangerous were “just hunches.”

The government appealed, arguing Sigala-Baray’s inability to provide vehicle insurance upon request violated the law and gave Taylor grounds to search and arrest him.

“Corporal Taylor did not think he had probable cause to arrest Mr. Sigala-Baray for failing to provide proof of insurance. Indeed, he testified he was not going to arrest him,” responded public defender Jacob Rasch-Chabot.

During oral arguments to the 10th Circuit panel, Carson emphasized that Colorado law ultimately requires “immediate evidence” of insurance.

“So, if the officer asked the driver or the passenger, ‘Do you have insurance’ and they said yes, but they were never able to produce an image or a card,” he said, “the ‘yes’ doesn’t get them anything at the end of the day.”

The 10th Circuit concluded Taylor had probable cause to arrest Sigala-Baray for failing to provide insurance.

However, the panel stopped short of permitting prosecutors to use the gun evidence outright. Carson noted that Wang had not addressed Sigala-Baray’s argument that Taylor could not search and arrest him for weapons possession if his only suspected offense was failure to provide insurance.

The panel returned the case to Wang for further review.

The case is United States v. Sigala-Baray.