USA v. Abarca et al

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. )
)
James William Jones, Jr., ) Case No. 1:20-cr-078
)
Defendant. )
_____________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is the Defendant’s motion to suppress filed on August 2, 2022. See Doc.
No. 185. The Government filed response in opposition to the motion on August 16, 2022. See Doc.
No. 191. A hearing on the motion was held on September 13, 2022. For the reasons set forth
below, the motion is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
The Court held a suppression hearing on September 13, 2022. Two law enforcement
officers testified at the hearing: Officer Shannon Reichenberg of the Mandan Police Department and
Officer Nickolas Pynnonen of the Bismarck Police Department and formerly of the Mandan Police
Department. The factual background is derived from their testimony, as well as the law
enforcement reports and the dash camera footage in the record.
At approximately 4:45 p.m. on December 12, 2019, Mandan Police Officer Scott Warzecha
observed a black Mercedes-Benz pull into the parking lot of Barney’s gas station in Mandan, North
Dakota. The vehicle had window tint which appeared far darker than what North Dakota law
permits and had no visible license plates or registration. Officer Warzecha had encountered the
Case 1:20-cr-00078-DLH Document 202 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 4

vehicle the night before and intended to stop the vehicle at that time but lost sight of it. Officer
Warzecha pulled into the parking lot and initiated a traffic stop on the vehicle. Officers
Reichenberg and Pynnonen arrived moments after the stop to assist Officer Warzecha. The
Defendant, James Jones, was the operator and only occupant of the vehicle. Jones was unable to
produce a drivers license, registration, or proof of insurance. Jones claimed to have bought the
vehicle four days prior but could not produce a bill of sale. Dispatch informed Officer Warzecha
that Jones’ drivers license was suspended and restricted for lack of insurance and that he had
warrants out of Burleigh County and from the Mandan Police Department. Jones was arrested for
driving under suspension, violation of driver’s license restrictions, and the outstanding warrants.
Jones was given a written warning for illegal window tint.
Jones was then transported to the Burleigh Morton Detention Center by Officer Reichenberg.
Once inside the jail, correctional officers located approximately ninety-seven fentanyl pills in a bag
in Jones’ hand.
II. LEGAL DISCUSSION
Jones contends the stop of the vehicle on December 12, 2019, in Mandan, North Dakota,
was unlawful. The Government contends there were two independent bases for a lawful stop:
excessive window tint and failure to display license plates.
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
2
Case 1:20-cr-00078-DLH Document 202 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 4

(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
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
omitted). An officer’s subjective intentions for making a traffic stop are irrelevant once he has
established probable cause based upon the observation of a traffic violation. United States v.
Fuehrer, 844 F.3d 767, 772 (8th Cir. 2016).
The Court had the opportunity to carefully listen to Officer Reichenberg and Officer
Pynnonen at the suppression hearing and watch the dash-cam video. Both officers testified that they
observed Jones vehicle at the gas station and the car had window tint that appeared in excess of
what is allowed under North Dakota law. See N.D.C.C. § 39-21-39(4). In addition, no license
plates were displayed on the front or rear of the vehicle and it was not bearing a registration tag
evidencing a recent sale. This failure is a violation of N.D.C.C. §§ 39-04-11 and 39-04-36(3). The
3
Case 1:20-cr-00078-DLH Document 202 Filed 09/19/22 Page 3 of 4

testimony of Officers Reichenberg and Pynnonen was honest, straight-forward, and credible. The
Court has no reason to believe their testimony regarding the traffic violations was anything less than
truthful. The testimony was supported by the dash-cam video and the testimony was unrefuted. The
dash-cam video clearly shows the vehicle did not have license plates and its windows were heavily
tinted. The lack of license plates and heavy window tint are both traffic violations. Either of these
traffic violations could serve as an independent basis to stop a vehicle. See State v. Bartelson, 704
N.W.2d 824, 828 (N.D. 2005); United States v. Rowe, 878 F.3d 623, 628 (8th Cir. 2017).
Accordingly, the Court finds the stop of the vehicle was lawful.
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. 185) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 19th day of September, 2022.
/s/ Daniel L. Hovland
Daniel L. Hovland, District Judge
United States District Court
4
Case 1:20-cr-00078-DLH Document 202 Filed 09/19/22 Page 4 of 4