USA v. Navarette

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America, )
) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
Plaintiff, ) MOTION TO SUPPRESS
)
vs. )
)
Willie Israel Navarette, ) Case No. 1:18-cr-115
)
Defendants. )
_____________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is the Defendant’s motion to suppress filed on August 8, 2018. See Doc.
No. 30. The Government filed a response in opposition to the motion on August 21, 2018. See
Doc. No. 35. A hearing on the motion was held on March 25, 2019. Both parties filed post-hearing
briefs on April 9, 2019. See Doc. Nos. 61 and 63. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is
denied.
I. BACKGROUND
In the early morning hours of May 30, 2018, Williston Police Sergeant Kristiina Ravaska
was on patrol in Williston, North Dakota. While on patrol, she observed that a vehicle behind her
had the driver’s side headlight out, a violation of North Dakota law. At approximately 1:57 a.m.,
she conducted a traffic stop on the vehicle, a blue 1989 Dodge Durango, for the equipment
violation. The dash camera in Sgt. Ravaska’s patrol car was not operational. The Williston Police
Department does not use body cameras.
The driver was the sole occupant of the vehicle and upon Sgt. Ravaska’s request, could not
produce a driver’s license, proof of insurance, or registration for the vehicle. The driver identified
Case 1:18-cr-00115-DLH Document 66 Filed 04/23/19 Page 1 of 10

himself as Willie Navarette. At approximately 2:04 a.m., Sgt. Ravaska called in the name, but
police dispatch could not locate a driving record. Dispatch advised that Navarette was on federal
supervision. Police Officer Jason Barten arrived on scene to assist while Sgt. Ravaska was running
the records check on Navarette. No dash camera video of the incident exists from Officer Barten’s
vehicle.
Sgt. Ravaska returned to the vehicle. Navarette was still unable to produce his driver’s
license, but was checking his pockets as if looking for it. Sgt. Ravaska asked if he wanted to step
out of the vehicle to check his pockets for his driver’s license, and Navarette did so. Navarette
testified Sgt. Ravaska ordered him out of the vehicle. When the driver’s door opened, Sgt. Ravaska
observed in plain view, a loaded magazine for a handgun in the door panel. See Doc. Nos. 60-2 and
60-3. Navarette denied any knowledge of the ammunition magazine and upon asking if possessing
such an item was a violation of his supervision, he stated he did not know and attempted to get back
into the vehicle. At approximately 2:18 a.m., Sgt. Ravaska informed Navarette that he was not
under arrest, but would be detained and asked him to place his hands behind his back. Navarette
started pulling away and tensing up. With the assistance of Officer Barten, Navarette was
handcuffed. Sgt. Ravaska advised Navarette of his Miranda rights and received confirmation he
understood them. Navarette consented to a pat down and Sgt. Ravaska located an empty holster for
a handgun on his belt. Sgt. Ravaska asked him where he placed the weapon and Navarette stated
he wished to remain silent.
While looking into the vehicle from the outside, Officer Barten advised Sgt. Ravaska he
could see a handgun located between the front driver’s seat and the center console. See Doc. No.
2
Case 1:18-cr-00115-DLH Document 66 Filed 04/23/19 Page 2 of 10

60-5. Sgt. Ravaska was also able to observe the firearm from outside the vehicle. Navarette was
placed in Officer Barten’s patrol vehicle. Sgt. Ravaska then entered the vehicle and seized the
handgun -- a .40-caliber Glock with a seated magazine containing 13 rounds and a single chambered
round. See Doc. No. 60-6. Continuing the search of the vehicle, she found two rifles, an assortment
of ammunition, and mail addressed to Navarette, all in the passenger compartment. See Doc. Nos.
60-7, 60-8, 60-9, 60-10, 60-11, and 60-12. Upon completion of the search of the vehicle, Navarette
was arrested at approximately 2:58 a.m.
Navarette, who was visiting Williston and staying in a hotel at the time of the incident,
testified he had purchased the vehicle for $800 two days prior to the traffic stop. He could not recall
the name of the person from whom he purchased the vehicle although he believed the seller now
lives in Virginia. The seller did not provide Navarette a title for the vehicle. Navarette testified he
did not yet have proof of insurance or registration for the vehicle because he had just recently
purchased it. His Texas driver’s license had been misplaced. When he purchased the vehicle both
headlights were working. In addition, prior to being stopped on May 30, 2018, Navarette had
stopped at two convenience stores, left the vehicle running while he went inside, and did not
observe that either headlight was out when he returned to the vehicle.
The parties dispute whether Navarette was taken to the front of the vehicle and shown that
the headlight was out. Navarette testified he did not ask to see the headlight. Sgt. Ravaska testified
Navarette asked to see the headlight and she took him to the front of the vehicle and showed him
the headlight that was out after she patted him down. Although several photos of the vehicle were
taken, none showed the front of the vehicle.
3
Case 1:18-cr-00115-DLH Document 66 Filed 04/23/19 Page 3 of 10

Sgt. Ravaska testified that pursuant to department practice and policy, since Navarette’s
vehicle was legally parked, it was not towed or impounded. Navarette testified that he contacted
his mother about the vehicle a couple days after his arrest, but it was never located.
Navarette was initially charged in state court. The state court charges were dismissed when
the federal indictment charging possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon was
returned.
II. LEGAL DISCUSSION
A. THE STOP OF THE VEHICLE
Navarette contends the stop of the vehicle was unjustified as the headlights on his vehicle
were working properly and there is no evidence to support Sgt. Ravaska’s testimony that the driver’s
side headlight was out. The Government contends Sgt. Ravaska’s testimony was credible and thus
there was a sufficient basis for a traffic stop. As the Government puts it, “there is a stark factual
dispute” which will require the Court to make a credibility determination.
Because a traffic stop constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, an officer must
have probable cause or a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle or its occupants are involved in
illegal activity before conducting a traffic stop. See United States v. Hollins, 685 F.3d 703, 705-06
(8th Cir. 2012); United States v. Payne, 534 F.3d 948, 951 (8th Cir. 2008). Courts assess reasonable
suspicion from the point of view of the officer based upon the totality of the circumstances known
to the officer at the time. United States v. Zamora-Lopez, 685 F.3d 787, 790 (8th Cir. 2012). A
determination of whether probable cause or reasonable suspicion existed is not to be made with the
4
Case 1:18-cr-00115-DLH Document 66 Filed 04/23/19 Page 4 of 10

benefit of hindsight, but rather by looking at what the officer reasonably knew at the time. Hollins,
685 F.3d at 706. A reasonable suspicion must be more than a hunch. See United States v. Walker,
555 F.3d 716, 719 (8th Cir. 2009). It is well-established in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that
a traffic violation, no matter how minor, provides an officer with probable cause for a traffic stop.
United States v. Coleman, 700 F.3d 329, 334 (8th Cir. 2012). “As long as an officer objectively has
a reasonable basis for believing that the driver has breached a traffic law, the officer has probable
cause to conduct a traffic stop.” United States v. Coney, 456 F.3d 850, 856 (8th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotations ommitted). In this case, it is undisputed that operating a motor vehicle with non-
functioning headlight is a violation of North Dakota law. See N.D.C.C. §§ 39-21-01, 39-21-03, and
39-21-46.
The Court had the opportunity to carefully listen to both Sgt. Ravaska and Navarette at the
suppression hearing. Sgt. Ravaska’s testimony was honest, straight-forward, logical, and credible.
The Court has no reason to believe her testimony regarding the headlight was anything less than
truthful. While no corroborating evidence was presented, her testimony alone is sufficient for a
finding of probable cause. There has been no suggestion that Sgt. Ravaska had any motive to
fabricate her testimony.
Suffice it to say, Navarette’s testimony was hard to believe. Navarette testified he paid $800
for a vehicle without a title and he could not recall the name of the person he bought it from in
Williston. Navarette said he checked out the vehicle inside and outside and purchased it with cash
although he was concerned about the title. Further, it seems incredible that a motorist pulled over
for a faulty headlight would not ask to see for himself whether the light was in fact not working.
5
Case 1:18-cr-00115-DLH Document 66 Filed 04/23/19 Page 5 of 10

Navarette’s prior felony conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm also hurts his
credibility “‘because of the common sense proposition that one who has transgressed society’s
norms by committing a felony is less likely than most to be deterred from lying under oath.’”
United States v. Chauncy, 420 F.3d 864, 874 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Cummings v. Malone, 995
F.2d 817, 826 (8th Cir.1993). The Court notes there is also no evidence corroborating Navarette’s
version of events, and he has a clear motivation to fabricate his story.
Having carefully listened to both sides of the story at the suppression hearing and observed
the demeanor of both Sgt. Ravaska and Navarette, the Court finds Sgt. Ravaska’s testimony that the
headlight on Navarette’s vehicle was not working to be credible. Based upon the testimony of Sgt.
Ravaska, the Court finds as a matter of law that the stop of the vehicle in this case was objectively
reasonable and lawful.
B. PRESERVATION OF THE VEHICLE
Navarette also complains that the Williston Police Department failed to preserve his vehicle
and this failure constitutes a due process violation. The vehicle was left parked on the side of the
road after Navarette was arrested. Sgt. Ravaska testified the vehicle was legally parked so it was
left at the scene pursuant to Williston Police Department policy and procedure. There was no
reason to impound it. The vehicle has never been located and its whereabouts are unknown.
A defendant’s due process rights are violated if the government suppresses or fails to
disclose “material exculpatory evidence.” United States v. Houston, 548 F.3d 1151, 1155 (8th Cir.
2008) (citing Illinois v. Fisher, 540 U.S. 544, 547 (2004)). If, however, the evidence is not clearly
6
Case 1:18-cr-00115-DLH Document 66 Filed 04/23/19 Page 6 of 10

exculpatory and instead is merely “potentially useful,” then the defendant must establish bad faith
on the part of the police to establish a due process violation. Id. (citing Arizona v. Youngblood, 488
U.S. 51, 57 (1988)). In Houston, the defendant argued that his due process rights were violated
because the officers failed to preserve videotape evidence of a traffic stop that led to the defendant's
narcotic's arrest. The Eighth Circuit held that the defendant was required to show bad faith on the
part of the officer to establish a due process violation because the videotape presented “potentially
useful” evidence, not exculpatory evidence.
There has been no showing of bad faith in this case. Sgt. Ravaska simply followed
department procedure. The vehicle had been searched and there was no reason to impound it.
Navarette was arrested for weapons violations rather than traffic offenses. Sgt. Ravaska had no way
of anticipating what legal arguments he would later raise. The vehicle itself is not exculpatory, but
rather simply potentially useful. In light of Houston, the Court finds Navarette has failed to
establish bad faith in the failure to preserve the vehicle.
C. DELAY
Navarette contends the traffic stop was prolonged, without reasonable suspicion, in violation
of the Fourth Amendment and Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015). In Rodriguez,
the United States Supreme Court held “a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter
for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.” Id.
at 1612. “An officer conducting a traffic stop who discovers information leading to reasonable
suspicion of an unrelated crime may extend the stop and broaden the investigation.” United States
7
Case 1:18-cr-00115-DLH Document 66 Filed 04/23/19 Page 7 of 10

v. Woods, 829 F.3d 675, 679 (8th Cir. 2016). “In the absence of reasonable suspicion, police may
not extend an otherwise-completed traffic stop. Id.; Rodriguez, 135 S. Ct. 1615-16. If an officer
has reasonable suspicion to justify expanding the scope of the investigation, the extension of the
stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment. See Woods, 829 F.2d at 679. To establish reasonable
suspicion, “the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken
together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant” further investigation. Id.
(citation omitted). The reasonable suspicion determination is made based upon the totality of the
circumstances. Id. The Eighth Circuit has recognized that “a lawful detention may be prolonged
for a reasonable time without violating the Fourth Amendment if complications arise while checking
identification.” United States v. Cloud, 594 F.3d 1042, 1045 (8th Cir. 2010).
The touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis is always “‘the reasonableness in all the
circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.’”
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108-09 (1977) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19
(1968)). In this case, the delay was minimal and largely caused by Navarette’s inability to produce
a driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance. North Dakota law requires the operator of
an automobile to carry all three while operating a motor vehicle. See N.D.C.C. §§ 39-06-16
(license), 39-04-55 (registration card), 39-08-20 (insurance).
Navarette was stopped at 1:57 a.m., a records check was run at 2:04 a.m., he was detained
at 2:18 a.m., and arrested at 2:58 a.m. The records check revealed Navarette was on federal
supervision and a convicted felon. Sgt. Ravaska observed a loaded ammunition clip in the side
panel of the driver’s door shortly before she detained Navarette at 2:18 a.m. Sgt. Ravaska then
8
Case 1:18-cr-00115-DLH Document 66 Filed 04/23/19 Page 8 of 10

patted down Navarette and found an empty gun holster on his belt. Where one finds an ammunition
clip for a gun and an empty holster for a gun, one might reasonably expect to find a gun as well.
These observations, combined with the knowledge that Navarette was a convicted felon on federal
supervision, provided reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop. Once an officer completes the
purpose of a traffic stop, he may “expand the scope of a traffic stop if he has reasonable suspicion
of other criminal activity based on the totality of the circumstances and informed by his training and
experience.” United States v. Guerrero, 374 F.3d 584, 596 (8th Cir. 2004);Terry, 392 U.S. at 30.
Further investigation was clearly warranted. Only 21 minutes elapsed between the time
Navarette was stopped and reasonable suspicion sufficient to prolong the stop arose. Just moments
after the clip and empty holster were discovered and Navarette detained, the handgun was found in
plain view between the driver’s seat and center console. Once the handgun was observed in plain
view, there was probable cause for an arrest as Sgt. Ravaska was aware that Navarette was a
convicted felon on federal supervision. See United States v. Fladten, 230 F.3d 1083, 1085 (8th Cir.
2000) (“probable cause exists when, given the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person
could believe there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in
a particular place”). Under the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds the delay in this case
of just more than 21 minutes to be reasonable.
9
Case 1:18-cr-00115-DLH Document 66 Filed 04/23/19 Page 9 of 10

III. CONCLUSION
The Court has carefully reviewed the entire record, the parties’ arguments, the evidence
presented at the suppression hearing, and the relevant case law. For the reasons outlined above, the
motion to suppress (Doc. No. 30) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 23rd day of April, 2019.
/s/ Daniel L. Hovland
Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge
United States District Court
10
Case 1:18-cr-00115-DLH Document 66 Filed 04/23/19 Page 10 of 10