Police Used a Truck Inspection To Search for Drugs. The 7th Circuit Said the Fourth Amendment Forbids It.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled in favor of Ausencio Martinez, finding that Illinois State Police Trooper and K9 handler Anthony Muzzillo had violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures by using an administrative inspection of Martinez’s semitruck as a pretext to engage in a criminal search.

At 3:16 a.m. on October 7, 2021, Muzzillo and another K9 officer—acting on a tip from an unnamed law enforcement agency—pulled over Martinez. The two weren’t on regular patrol and had been waiting on the side of the highway for “​​at least thirty minutes,” looking out for Martinez’s semitruck. 

Under Illinois’ Motor Carrier Safety Law, state police are authorized to “stop and inspect” commercial vehicles or drivers “at any time” to ensure they comply with state regulations. The statute empowers officers to conduct administrative inspections at seven varying levels of intrusion. Muzzillo and the other K9 handler conducted a Level 3 search on Martinez, which included a review of his driver’s license and other documents, as well as an interview. 

Even though a Level 3 administrative inspection does not include a search of a person’s vehicle or effects—and administrative inspections cannot substitute for the normal procedure of obtaining a search warrant where no probable cause exists—police searched Martinez and his vehicle. Through a K9 drug sniff, the police found narcotics in the truck, and charged Martinez with possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, and sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment. 

Martinez appealed and filed a motion to suppress the evidence, but the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois denied the motion. In its ruling, the 7th Circuit found the district court had wrongly reasoned that Muzzillo’s “subjective intent” for stopping Martinez was irrelevant. 

Martinez argued that Muzzillo used his authority to conduct an administrative inspection “solely” as a pretext to investigate the tip he received, circumventing the Fourth Amendment’s protection against warrantless searches. 

The 7th Circuit agreed, finding that Martinez’s motion to suppress turned on “whether the stop was, in fact, pretextual.” The 7th Circuit also rejected the government’s argument that, even if Muzzillo’s search was pretextual, it was still permissible under the exclusionary rule and its good-faith exception—a judicial doctrine that allows the government to use illegally obtained evidence in court, provided the police were acting in an “objectively reasonable” manner.

For Muzzillo to have been acting in good faith, the 7th Circuit ruled that the government would have had to “sufficiently rebut” the claim that the initial stop was not based solely on the narcotics tip. As the 7th Circuit notes, the Supreme Court has for decades allowed warrantless administrative inspections only “in furtherance of the administrative scheme, not as a pretext for criminal investigation.”

But Muzzillo’s own words give away his intent. 

When he first approached Martinez’s truck, Muzzillo stated he noticed an “overwhelming odor of air freshener” and surmised Martinez was trying to hide the smell of drugs. Muzzillo described Martinez as “extremely nervous” during the inspection, noting that he was breathing heavily and had a “dry mouth.” 

He later testified he only stopped Martinez because his truck was “possibly carrying large-load narcotics,” all but confirming he always intended to use the administrative inspection as an excuse for a criminal investigation. 

It’s unclear whether Martinez will be retried now that the evidence against him has been suppressed. 

Still, with administrative inspections en vogue at the state and federal levels—and the Supreme Court’s inconsistent rulings on privacy—the 7th Circuit’s decision is a win against warrantless government searches.