Appellate Case: 24-6035 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/16/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 16, 2025 Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 24-6035
JONAS DALVEYON TYLER,
Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (D.C. No. 5:23-CR-00092-PRW-1) _________________________________
Leah D. Yaffe, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Virginia L. Grady, Federal Public Defender with her on the briefs), Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant.
Tanner Hermann, Assistant U.S. Attorney (Robert J. Troester, United States Attorney and Daniel D. Gridley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney with him on the brief), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellee. _________________________________
Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, SEYMOUR, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge. _________________________________
Defendant Jonas Tyler appeals from his conviction and sentence stemming
from the December 21, 2022 search of his car by the Oklahoma City Police
Department. Mr. Tyler moved to suppress the evidence from the search, but when the Appellate Case: 24-6035 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/16/2025 Page: 2
district court ruled against him he entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of
possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon. In his plea, he reserved his
right to appeal on the suppression issue. The district court sentenced him to 84
months incarceration. On appeal, Mr. Tyler argues that the government violated his
Fourth Amendment rights by detaining him for longer than was reasonable.
For the reasons explicated infra, we agree with Mr. Tyler. Accordingly,
exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we vacate Mr. Tyler’s conviction and
sentence and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I
On December 21, 2022 at 8 pm, a local police officer, Sergeant Travis Teague,
received a tip that Karen Gonzalez, who had an outstanding arrest warrant for failure
to appear in a drug trafficking case, was at a Days Inn near I-40 in Oklahoma City.
Sergeant Teague asked for help from two undercover officers, Lieutenant Mack
Merits and Officer Tyler Harman. The three began surveilling the Days Inn parking
lot for Ms. Gonzalez. Officer Harman saw someone he believed to be Ms. Gonzalez
get into the passenger side of a gold Chevy, and the three officers followed the car
across the street to a gas station. The front passenger got out of the car to go into the
gas station store, and Officer Harman was able to confirm that it was Ms. Gonzalez.
Ms. Gonzalez left the gas station store and returned to the front passenger seat
of the car. Mr. Tyler was either standing next to or partially inside the car on the
driver’s side. Officers approached the car with their guns drawn and yelled at Mr.
Tyler and the two female passengers not to move and to show their hands. Mr. Tyler
2 Appellate Case: 24-6035 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/16/2025 Page: 3
complied with instructions to walk towards Sergeant Teague with his hands up, and
he was then handcuffed and extensively patted down before being put in the back of a
police car. Sergeant Teague also took Mr. Tyler’s cell phone and put it in the Chevy,
where Mr. Tyler could not access it.
As Mr. Tyler was being detained and searched, Officer Harman removed a
woman from the back seat of the gold Chevy, handcuffed her, and told her to sit on a
curb, where Lieutenant Merits kept watch over her. Next Officer Harman pulled Ms.
Gonzalez out of the front passenger seat, handcuffed her, and brought her over to the
same curb, where she sat calmly for the rest of her time at the gas station.
While this was going on, Sergeant Teague called for a female officer to come
to the scene so she could conduct a pat down of Ms. Gonzalez. He then started
talking to Mr. Tyler. Sergeant Teague asked Mr. Tyler if the car belonged to him and
Mr. Tyler said it did. Sergeant Teague asked Mr. Tyler whether there was anything of
interest in the car. Mr. Tyler said no and asked what was going on. Sergeant Teague
told him that Ms. Gonzalez had a warrant out for her arrest. Mr. Tyler looked
surprised, and Sergeant Teague told him to watch the company he kept.
Sergeant Teague then asked if he could search Mr. Tyler’s car. Mr. Tyler said
no, noting that he had nothing to do with whatever Ms. Gonzalez had done. At that
point, Sergeant Teague shut the back door of his patrol car, leaving Mr. Tyler
handcuffed in the back seat, and went to talk with the other officers. He told them
Mr. Tyler objected to a search but noted that a K-9 unit was in the area. He decided
3 Appellate Case: 24-6035 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/16/2025 Page: 4
to call for the K-9 and handler to come to the scene so the dog could sniff Mr. Tyler’s
car.
Nearly fifteen minutes after Mr. Tyler’s detention began, and at least ten
minutes after the officers had finished arresting Ms. Gonzalez, Officer Keegan Burris
and his K-9 dog arrived and began to conduct an open-air dog sniff. The dog alerted
to Mr. Tyler’s car, and the officers proceeded to search it. They found a firearm and
about six grams of suspected fentanyl pills. Sometime after Officer Burris and his
K-9 dog arrived, a female officer came to pat down the two women.
After being charged with possession of a firearm by a previously convicted
felon, Mr. Tyler moved to suppress the evidence found in his car as well as any
statements he made. He claimed that his continued detention at the gas station past
the point when officers had handcuffed and arrested Ms. Gonzalez was
unconstitutional. Mr. Tyler conceded that his initial detention was reasonable as part
of the process of arresting Ms. Gonzalez, but he argued that his continued detention
after Ms. Gonzalez had been handcuffed and arrested was unreasonable and a
violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The government argued that Mr. Tyler’s
continued detention while officers waited for a female officer to arrive on the scene
to pat down Ms. Gonzalez was reasonable to protect officer safety, although they
acknowledged there was no reason to believe Mr. Tyler was dangerous or otherwise
suspicious. The district court ruled in favor of the government, after which Mr. Tyler
entered a conditional plea to the single-count indictment, expressly reserving his
4 Appellate Case: 24-6035 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/16/2025 Page: 5
right to appeal the district court’s suppression ruling. He was sentenced to 84 months
in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. This timely appeal followed.
II
We review “the ultimate determination of reasonableness de novo” when
hearing an appeal of a suppression ruling. United States v. Koerber, 10 F.4th 1083,
1103 (10th Cir. 2021). Mr. Tyler and the government agree that his initial detention
was reasonable to allow the police to arrest Ms. Gonzalez. The disagreement is about
Mr. Tyler’s continued detention after officers had handcuffed and arrested Ms.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Appellate Case: 24-6035 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/16/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 16, 2025 Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 24-6035
JONAS DALVEYON TYLER,
Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (D.C. No. 5:23-CR-00092-PRW-1) _________________________________
Leah D. Yaffe, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Virginia L. Grady, Federal Public Defender with her on the briefs), Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant.
Tanner Hermann, Assistant U.S. Attorney (Robert J. Troester, United States Attorney and Daniel D. Gridley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney with him on the brief), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellee. _________________________________
Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, SEYMOUR, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge. _________________________________
Defendant Jonas Tyler appeals from his conviction and sentence stemming
from the December 21, 2022 search of his car by the Oklahoma City Police
Department. Mr. Tyler moved to suppress the evidence from the search, but when the Appellate Case: 24-6035 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/16/2025 Page: 2
district court ruled against him he entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of
possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon. In his plea, he reserved his
right to appeal on the suppression issue. The district court sentenced him to 84
months incarceration. On appeal, Mr. Tyler argues that the government violated his
Fourth Amendment rights by detaining him for longer than was reasonable.
For the reasons explicated infra, we agree with Mr. Tyler. Accordingly,
exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we vacate Mr. Tyler’s conviction and
sentence and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I
On December 21, 2022 at 8 pm, a local police officer, Sergeant Travis Teague,
received a tip that Karen Gonzalez, who had an outstanding arrest warrant for failure
to appear in a drug trafficking case, was at a Days Inn near I-40 in Oklahoma City.
Sergeant Teague asked for help from two undercover officers, Lieutenant Mack
Merits and Officer Tyler Harman. The three began surveilling the Days Inn parking
lot for Ms. Gonzalez. Officer Harman saw someone he believed to be Ms. Gonzalez
get into the passenger side of a gold Chevy, and the three officers followed the car
across the street to a gas station. The front passenger got out of the car to go into the
gas station store, and Officer Harman was able to confirm that it was Ms. Gonzalez.
Ms. Gonzalez left the gas station store and returned to the front passenger seat
of the car. Mr. Tyler was either standing next to or partially inside the car on the
driver’s side. Officers approached the car with their guns drawn and yelled at Mr.
Tyler and the two female passengers not to move and to show their hands. Mr. Tyler
2 Appellate Case: 24-6035 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/16/2025 Page: 3
complied with instructions to walk towards Sergeant Teague with his hands up, and
he was then handcuffed and extensively patted down before being put in the back of a
police car. Sergeant Teague also took Mr. Tyler’s cell phone and put it in the Chevy,
where Mr. Tyler could not access it.
As Mr. Tyler was being detained and searched, Officer Harman removed a
woman from the back seat of the gold Chevy, handcuffed her, and told her to sit on a
curb, where Lieutenant Merits kept watch over her. Next Officer Harman pulled Ms.
Gonzalez out of the front passenger seat, handcuffed her, and brought her over to the
same curb, where she sat calmly for the rest of her time at the gas station.
While this was going on, Sergeant Teague called for a female officer to come
to the scene so she could conduct a pat down of Ms. Gonzalez. He then started
talking to Mr. Tyler. Sergeant Teague asked Mr. Tyler if the car belonged to him and
Mr. Tyler said it did. Sergeant Teague asked Mr. Tyler whether there was anything of
interest in the car. Mr. Tyler said no and asked what was going on. Sergeant Teague
told him that Ms. Gonzalez had a warrant out for her arrest. Mr. Tyler looked
surprised, and Sergeant Teague told him to watch the company he kept.
Sergeant Teague then asked if he could search Mr. Tyler’s car. Mr. Tyler said
no, noting that he had nothing to do with whatever Ms. Gonzalez had done. At that
point, Sergeant Teague shut the back door of his patrol car, leaving Mr. Tyler
handcuffed in the back seat, and went to talk with the other officers. He told them
Mr. Tyler objected to a search but noted that a K-9 unit was in the area. He decided
3 Appellate Case: 24-6035 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/16/2025 Page: 4
to call for the K-9 and handler to come to the scene so the dog could sniff Mr. Tyler’s
car.
Nearly fifteen minutes after Mr. Tyler’s detention began, and at least ten
minutes after the officers had finished arresting Ms. Gonzalez, Officer Keegan Burris
and his K-9 dog arrived and began to conduct an open-air dog sniff. The dog alerted
to Mr. Tyler’s car, and the officers proceeded to search it. They found a firearm and
about six grams of suspected fentanyl pills. Sometime after Officer Burris and his
K-9 dog arrived, a female officer came to pat down the two women.
After being charged with possession of a firearm by a previously convicted
felon, Mr. Tyler moved to suppress the evidence found in his car as well as any
statements he made. He claimed that his continued detention at the gas station past
the point when officers had handcuffed and arrested Ms. Gonzalez was
unconstitutional. Mr. Tyler conceded that his initial detention was reasonable as part
of the process of arresting Ms. Gonzalez, but he argued that his continued detention
after Ms. Gonzalez had been handcuffed and arrested was unreasonable and a
violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The government argued that Mr. Tyler’s
continued detention while officers waited for a female officer to arrive on the scene
to pat down Ms. Gonzalez was reasonable to protect officer safety, although they
acknowledged there was no reason to believe Mr. Tyler was dangerous or otherwise
suspicious. The district court ruled in favor of the government, after which Mr. Tyler
entered a conditional plea to the single-count indictment, expressly reserving his
4 Appellate Case: 24-6035 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/16/2025 Page: 5
right to appeal the district court’s suppression ruling. He was sentenced to 84 months
in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. This timely appeal followed.
II
We review “the ultimate determination of reasonableness de novo” when
hearing an appeal of a suppression ruling. United States v. Koerber, 10 F.4th 1083,
1103 (10th Cir. 2021). Mr. Tyler and the government agree that his initial detention
was reasonable to allow the police to arrest Ms. Gonzalez. The disagreement is about
Mr. Tyler’s continued detention after officers had handcuffed and arrested Ms.
Gonzalez and were only waiting for the arrival of a female officer to pat her down
before she could be transported away from the scene.
In cases of warrantless detentions without probable cause, reasonableness is
determined through a balancing test between the “nature and quality of the intrusion”
on a detained person’s liberty and personal security rights against the “governmental
interests alleged to justify the intrusion.” United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 228
(1985). This balancing test applies not only to the initial detention, but to its scope
and duration. “When the nature and extent of the detention are minimally intrusive of
the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests, the opposing law enforcement interests
can support a seizure based on less than probable cause.” United States v. Place, 462
U.S. 696, 703 (1983). In other words, a detention that is reasonable at the outset can
become unreasonable if extended for an unwarranted amount of time.
The government points to United States v. Dennison, 410 F.3d 1203 (10th Cir.
2005), to support its position but this is off the mark. In Dennison, officers conducted
5 Appellate Case: 24-6035 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/16/2025 Page: 6
a search of a car at 3 am after establishing reasonable suspicion that both occupants
of the car were engaged in criminal activity. Id. at 1206. We upheld that search
because “officers had a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Dennison was dangerous and
able to gain immediate control of weapons.” Id. at 1214. Critical to that conclusion
was the fact that Mr. Dennison was parked in a lot “that had a high incidence of
nighttime car theft,” and also was in a truck “officers . . . had reason to believe that
weapons may be found in.” Id. at 1205, 1212. Mr. Dennison’s detention and resulting
search of his car were justified by officers’ reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and
dangerousness. Put another way, Mr. Dennison would have been held and searched
even if his companion was not being arrested. Mr. Tyler’s case is distinguishable
because unlike in Dennison, the police had no reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing or
dangerousness on Mr. Tyler’s part. Rather, the government’s interests in detaining
Mr. Tyler were: (1) arresting Ms. Gonzalez and (2) doing so safely.
The government argues that its arrest of Ms. Gonzalez, which seems to have
taken approximately one minute, was not completed until they could conduct a pat
down and then transport her away from the gas station. They further point to a
department policy that requires pat downs of female detainees be conducted by
female officers. They argue that the extended time Mr. Tyler was detained simply
reflected the length of time necessary for a female officer to arrive at the scene to
conduct the pat down. However, we are not convinced that an arrest is incomplete
when, after removing the subject of the arrest warrant from a car at gun point, the
officers have successfully handcuffed her and confined her to an area of their
6 Appellate Case: 24-6035 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/16/2025 Page: 7
choosing. Mr. Tyler should not have been expected to sit, handcuffed, in the back of
a police car for a quarter of an hour after the police had effectively accomplished Ms.
Gonzalez’s arrest.
The government also argues that Mr. Tyler had to be detained to keep officers
safe. To be sure, officer safety is an important government interest. At the same time,
it is not absolute, and the mere speculative possibility of danger cannot justify all
conceivable governmental intrusions on the liberty interests protected by the Fourth
Amendment. In this case, the government provided no specific or particularized
evidence that Mr. Tyler posed any danger to the officers. Indeed, despite the
government’s arguments to the contrary, it is not clear that Ms. Gonzalez herself
posed any meaningful danger to police. Unlike in Dennison, where the passenger had
just admitted that he had recently been involved in a “domestic” situation and “had
four outstanding arrest warrants, including a felony arrest warrant for a weapons
violation,” Ms. Gonzalez was simply wanted for failure to appear in a drug
trafficking case. Id. at 1206.
Despite having done nothing to bring any of this on himself, Mr. Tyler
experienced a severe intrusion on his liberty interests. After running Mr. Tyler’s
name and information, Sergeant Teague knew there were no outstanding arrest
warrants for Mr. Tyler but kept him detained anyway. At any point, Sergeant Teague
could have accomplished the goal of separating Mr. Tyler from Ms. Gonzalez by
telling Mr. Tyler to leave the gas station. Instead, Mr. Tyler was kept handcuffed in
the back of a police car. The government attempts to justify this infringement on Mr.
7 Appellate Case: 24-6035 Document: 66-1 Date Filed: 06/16/2025 Page: 8
Tyler’s rights through pure speculation about what Mr. Tyler might have done in the
worst-case scenario, despite the police having no reason to suspect or fear him.
Allowing such a weak justification to support such a serious trampling on individual
rights would practically nullify the Fourth Amendment as applied to people who
happen to be in the vicinity of someone being arrested. Mr. Tyler should have been
allowed to leave the scene after Ms. Gonzalez was handcuffed and detained.
Accordingly, the evidence discovered against him from that point on should have
been suppressed.
III
For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE Mr. Tyler’s conviction and sentence
and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.