USA v. Juan Zayas-Diaz

Opinion

USA v. Juan Zayas-Diaz CR-94-30-01-B 03/23/95

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 94-30-01-B

Juan Zavas-Diaz

O R D E R

Defendant Juan Zayas-Diaz moved to suppress cocaine seized

from a gym bag that Zayas-Diaz threw over an embankment during or

immediately prior to a confrontation with a Connecticut state

trooper. On February 6 , 1995, I denied Zayas-Diaz's motion.

Zayas-Diaz now asks me to reconsider that ruling.

I. FACTS1

On December 26, 1992, at approximately 10:00 p.m.,

Connecticut State Police Trooper James Taylor was on routine

patrol traveling northbound on Route 91 in Wallingford,

Connecticut, when he observed an abandoned vehicle in the

breakdown lane. As Trooper Taylor pulled up to the vehicle, a

BMW pulled onto the highway from in front of the abandoned

1The government has proved the facts described in this section by a preponderance of the evidence.

1 vehicle. Trooper Taylor followed the BMW for approximately one-

half mile, when it again pulled over into the breakdown lane. In

response. Trooper Taylor pulled his cruiser into the breakdown

lane, approximately 15-20 feet behind the BMW. Trooper Taylor

did nothing to cause the vehicle to pull over.

After stopping the BMW, the driver got out and walked to the

rear of the vehicle. Shortly thereafter, another person, later

identified as Zayas-Diaz, emerged from the vehicle's passenger

side and joined the driver. The two men began arguing and this

prompted Trooper Taylor out of concern for his safety to pull his

cruiser back approximately 30 yards from where the two men were

arguing.

Shortly thereafter, the driver began to jog towards the

cruiser, and Zayas-Diaz began to chase after him. In response.

Trooper Taylor radioed for assistance, got out of his cruiser,

and ordered the two men to stop. Notwithstanding his order, both

men kept advancing and Trooper Taylor could hear them arguing in

Spanish. Zayas-Diaz then began struggling with the driver in an

attempt to pull him back to the BMW. Trooper Taylor then ordered

both men to get down on their knees. Although the driver

complied, Zayas-Diaz released his grip on the driver and jogged

past Trooper Taylor. Trooper Taylor then grabbed Zayas-Diaz in

an attempt to subdue him. Immediately thereafter, Zayas-Diaz threw the gym bag he was carrying over the embankment along the

side of the road. Trooper Taylor later retrieved the gym bag and

discovered that it contained cocaine.

When Trooper Taylor confronted the two men on the side of

the highway, he was attempting to determine whether they had any

connection to the abandoned vehicle. After he observed them

struggling on the side of the highway, he ordered them to stop in

an effort to gain control of an uncertain and potentially

dangerous situation. He also decided at that point that he would

arrest Zayas-Diaz on charges of reckless use of a highway by a

pedestrian, and disorderly conduct.

II. DISCUSSION

In denying Zayas-Diaz's motion to suppress, I concluded that

he had no standing to challenge the search of the gym bag because

he abandoned it when he threw it over the embankment. See

generally United States v. Sealev, 30 F.3d 7, 10 (1st Cir. 1993) .

Moreover, I concluded that Trooper Taylor lawfully seized Zayas-

Diaz because he had a reasonable suspicion that Zayas-Diaz had

engaged in unlawful conduct and a legitimate need to briefly

detain Zayas-Diaz in order to gain control over a dynamic and

potentially dangerous situation. See United States v. Stanley,

3 915 F .2d 54, 56-57 (1st Cir. 1990).

Zayas-Diaz advances a new argument in support of his motion

for reconsideration. He now claims that Trooper Taylor arrested

him before he abandoned the gym bag and that the arrest was

illegal because it was not supported by probable cause. As a

result, he asserts that he is not barred from claiming a

legitimate expectation of privacy in the gym bag because he was

forced to abandon the bag as a result an illegal arrest. This

argument is misconceived for two reasons. First, the evidence

demonstrates that Zayas-Diaz abandoned the bag immediately after

Trooper Taylor attempted to detain him. At that point, Zayas-

Diaz had been seized only for a brief period. Whether or not

Trooper Taylor subjectively intended to arrest Zayas-Diaz at that

point in the confrontation, the brief seizure that preceded

Zayas-Diaz's decision to abandon the gym bag was short enough to

be justified as a Terry stop. See United States v. Zapata, 18

F.3d 971, 973 (1st Cir. 1994) (physical touching by police

officer did not transform lawful Terry stop into de facto

arrest); United States v. Quinn, 815 F.2d 153, 156 (1st Cir.

1987) (encounter lasting 20-25 minutes constitutes Terry stop).

Therefore, the seizure was justified because Trooper Taylor had a

reasonable suspicion that Zayas-Diaz had engaged in criminal

4 activity and a legitimate need to briefly detain Zayas-Diaz in

order to protect himself.

Second, even if Zayas-Diaz's seizure is viewed as an arrest,

the arrest was lawful because Trooper Taylor had probable cause

to believe that Zayas-Diaz had violated Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-182

(1992). This statute provides that

Any pedestrian who uses any street or highway negligently or recklessly or fails to obey the signal of any traffic officer, pedestrian control, sign, signal, marking or device or recklessly disregards his own safety or the safety of any person by the manner of his use of any street or highway shall be deemed to have committed an infraction and be fined not less than thirty-five dollars nor more than fifty dollars.

In the present case. Trooper Taylor observed Zayas-Diaz

struggling with another man at night in the breakdown lane of a

major interstate highway. These observations were sufficient to

support Trooper Taylor's conclusion that Zayas-Diaz was

recklessly disregarding his own safety as well as that of the man

with whom he was struggling. See generally State v. Ennis, 33

Conn. Supp. 725, 728-29, 368 A.2d 1186, 1188 (Sup. C t . 1976)

(discussing claim that evidence was insufficient to support a

violation of § 53-182). Accordingly, he had probable cause to

believe that Zayas-Diaz had violated § 53-182.

5 Defendant's motion for reconsideration (document no. 330) is

denied.

SO ORDERED.

Paul Barbadoro United States District Judqe March 23, 1995

cc: Terry Ollila, Esq., AUSA Paul Garrity, Esq. United States Marshal United States Probation