USA v. Jovel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARLOS JOVEL,
Defendant.
:
:
Case No. 2:25-cr-63
Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison
OPINION AND ORDER
In October 2024, Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper Timothy Ehrenborg
pulled over Defendant Carlos Jovel to conduct an administrative inspection of
Jovel’s semi-truck. During the inspection, Trooper Ehrenborg began to suspect that
Jovel was smuggling illegal drugs. A K9 was called to the scene to conduct a sniff
around the truck. After the K9 positively indicated to the presence of drugs, 15
kilogram-size packages of cocaine were discovered inside the truck.
Jovel filed a Motion to Suppress Search of Automobile and Request for an
Evidentiary Hearing. (Mot., ECF No. 31.) The Government responded (Resp., ECF
No. 36) and Jovel replied (Reply, ECF No. 41). An evidentiary hearing was held on
January 16, 2025. For the reasons below, the Motion is DENIED.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND1
On October 11, 2024, Trooper Ehrenborg observed a white commercial tractor
trailer bearing USDOT No. 2941872 on Interstate 70 near mile marker 74 in
1 The following factual background is based on Trooper Ehrenborg’s
testimony, his report, and his body camera footage. The body camera footage was
Case: 2:25-cr-00063-SDM Doc #: 44 Filed: 01/28/26 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Madison County, Ohio. (Ehrenborg Rep., ECF No. 31-1, PAGEID# 94.) He ran the
truck’s USDOT number through SafeSpect2 and identified the carrier as Black
Falcon Trucking, LLC. (Ehrenborg Rep., PAGEID# 94.) According to SafeSpect,
Falcon Trucking had an inspection value of 72 (an optional inspection score), its
United Carrier Registration (“UCR”) was unpaid, and it did not have an
International Fuel Tax Agreement (“IFTA”) on file. (Id.) Trooper Ehrenborg
initiated a traffic stop to conduct an administrative inspection. (Id.)
Trooper Ehrenborg approached and contacted the driver (who was later
identified as Jovel) and told him why he was stopped. (Tpr.’s Body Cam, 10:30:45.)
Jovel told Trooper Ehrenborg that he owned the truck and trailer and was hauling
general freight. (Id., 10:30:59.) Trooper Ehrenborg asked Jovel for his bill of lading
and logbook. Jovel provided two bills of lading, one that was signed for and one that
was not. (Id., 10:32:09.) As for the logbook, Trooper Ehrenborg asked Jovel if he was
using electronic logs (as required) and Jovel said that he was using paper. (Id.,
10:31:31.) Trooper Ehrenborg asked him why, and Jovel said that he used paper
logs because he was waiting for “the company” to provide him with the proper
equipment for electronic logs, but he acknowledged that his truck was the only one
both manually filed by Jovel as Defendant’s Exhibit C and introduced into evidence
by the Government as Government’s Exhibit 5. The body camera footage is
hereinafter referred to as Tpr.’s Body Cam. All citations are an approximate
reference to the starting time (listed in the top right-hand corner) for the relevant
portion of the footage cited.
2 SafeSpect is designed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(“FMCSA”) and “collects data related to the inspection of a commercial motor
vehicle, the motor carrier and its driver.” (Resp., PAGEID# 109, n. 1.)
Case: 2:25-cr-00063-SDM Doc #: 44 Filed: 01/28/26 Page: 2 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
in Falcon Trucking’s fleet. (Id., 10:33:21.) Before handing over his paper logbook,
Jovel said that he started his day in St. Louis, Missouri, but had not yet put that
information into his logbook. (Id., 10:32:53.)
After Trooper Ehrenborg returned to his cruiser, he was joined by Sgt.
Williamson. (Id., 10:36:44.) The two of them reviewed Jovel’s paperwork and
observed several entries in his paper logbook that struck them as unusual for the
trucking industry. (Id., 10:37:03; Ehrenborg Rep., PAGEID# 94.) For example, Jovel
was off duty from October 1–6, he picked up the loads he was hauling on October 7,
and then he went back home and off duty for 18 hours. (Tpr. Body Cam, 10:37:25.)
Sgt. Williamson went to discuss the unusual entries with Jovel. (Id., 10:39:05.)
When Sgt. Williamson returned to the cruiser, he shared with Trooper Ehrenborg
that Jovel’s logs were “no good.” (Id., 10:44:57.)
Trooper Ehrenborg then checked Jovel’s criminal history in NADDIS3 and
saw that Jovel had multiple interactions with phone numbers associated with
ongoing DEA investigations.4 He also learned that Jovel had a 2009 arrest for “65
kilos.” (Id., 10:53:20, 10:54:29.) With this information, Trooper Ehrenborg
approached the truck and asked Jovel to exit. (Id., 10:55:49.) Trooper Ehrenborg
3 The “Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Information System (NADDIS) … is a
centralized electronic data index system” that provides a “worldwide,
comprehensive search because all DEA intelligence and investigative records are
indexed into NADDIS.” Anand v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Servs., No. 21-
1635, 2023 WL 2645649 (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2023).
4 Trooper Ehrenborg testified that Jovel’s interactions with phone numbers
associated with ongoing DEA investigations are referred to as “tolls.” (Hr’g. Tr.,
60:19–22.) All citations to “Hr'g. Tr.” are to the “rough” transcript prepared for the
Court's use in rendering this Opinion and Order.
Case: 2:25-cr-00063-SDM Doc #: 44 Filed: 01/28/26 Page: 3 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
explained to Jovel that he had found violations, and that Jovel would be cited for an
incomplete paper logbook and for not having electronic logs. (Id., 10:56:44.) Trooper
Ehrenborg then asked Jovel for consent to search the truck. (Id., 10:58:08.) Jovel
initially responded, “if that’s what you guys want to do,” but then said that he did
not consent to a search. (Id.) After Jovel refused a search, Trooper Ehrenborg
returned to his cruiser to finish his inspection; at that time, Trooper Ehrenborg
requested a K9 unit to the scene. (Id., 11:00:09.)
London K9 Officer Michael Combs and K9 Cento arrived a short time later.
Cento was deployed around the truck and alerted to the presence of illegal drugs.
(Ehrenborg Rep., PAGEID# 95.) Troopers then searched the truck and found 15
kilogram-size packages of what was later identified as cocaine. (Id.) Jovel was
arrested on the scene. (Id.)
II. ANALYSIS
Jovel argues that Trooper Ehrenborg unlawfully deviated from the initial
purpose of the stop, without reasonable suspicion, to provide time for a K9 to arrive
on scene.5 He argues the Court should suppress all evidence recovered in the search.
(Mot., PAGEID # 72.)
The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure
... against unreasonable searches and seizures[.]” U.S. CONST. amend. IV. “A
lawful roadside stop begins when a vehicle is pulled over for investigation of a
5 Jovel initially contested the traffic stop itself but conceded at the
evidentiary hearing that Trooper Ehrenborg lawfully conducted a traffic stop to
perform a Level III administrative inspection. (Hr’g. Tr., 118:3–5.)
Case: 2:25-cr-00063-SDM Doc #: 44 Filed: 01/28/26 Page: 4 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
traffic violation.” Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 333 (2009). “Because addressing
the infraction is the purpose of the stop, it may ‘last no longer than is necessary to
effectuate th[at] purpose.’” Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354 (2015)
(citing United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 684 (1985)). “Authority for the seizure
thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have
been—completed.” Id. “To prolong a traffic stop beyond its original ‘mission,’ police
must have reasonable suspicion of additional wrongdoing.” United States v. Jordan,
100 F.4th 714, 718 (6th Cir. 2024).
The parties agree that Trooper Ehrenborg deviated from his administrative
inspection when he input Jovel’s information into his DEA issued laptop to conduct
a criminal background check. (Hr’g. Tr., 55:15–18.) Accordingly, the analysis turns
on whether Trooper Ehrenborg had reasonable suspicion to suspect that Jovel was
involved in illegal drug smuggling when he deviated from his administrative
inspection. Jovel says no. The Government says he did, and the Court agrees. As a
result, the Court does not address the Government’s alternative argument that the
inevitable discovery doctrine applies.
Trooper Ehrenborg had reasonable articulable suspicion to believe
Jovel was involved in illegal drug smuggling.
Once Trooper Ehrenborg abandoned his “traffic-related investigation, an
independent reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity beyond the traffic violation
was required to lawfully continue the stop.” United States v. Whitley, 34 F.4th 522,
532 (6th Cir. 2022). “Reasonable suspicion sets a modest bar.” United States v.
Urraca, 123 F.4th 834, 836 (6th Cir. 2024). It is “more than just a hunch but
Case: 2:25-cr-00063-SDM Doc #: 44 Filed: 01/28/26 Page: 5 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>

6
obviously less than probable cause.” Id. at 837 (cleaned up). “It is a ‘commonsense’
standard based on ‘the factual and practical considerations of everyday life.’” Id.
Officers are permitted to “draw on their own experiences and specialized
training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information
available.” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 266 (2002). An officer does not
have to “rule out innocuous explanations for suspicious behavior in order for his
suspicion to be ‘reasonable.’” Jordan, 100 F.4th at 719. Officers may also rely on
“criminal ‘profiles,’” or common “’modes or patterns of operation’” that lead them to
“be reasonably suspicious of individuals whose behavior fits those patterns.” Id. It is
not always the case that one fact in isolation equals reasonable suspicion. Instead, a
reviewing court “must assess whether everything the officer observed, taken
together and in context, is objectively suspicious.” Id.
Based on the totality of the circumstances, Trooper Ehrenborg had
reasonable suspicion to deviate from his administrative inspection to investigate
Jovel for illegal drug smuggling. To start, Trooper Ehrenborg had received a tip
from a DEA agent approximately eight months before the stop that Falcon Trucking
might be involved in drug smuggling. (Hr’g. Tr., 14:2–21.) The tip included
information that the trailer was registered in a woman’s name, which Trooper
Ehrenborg said he rarely sees. (Id., 14:16–19.) Trooper Ehrenborg printed Falcon
Trucking’s company profile and put it in the visor of his cruiser. (Id., 82:10–16.) The
most recent printout, dated September 30, 2024, was in Trooper Ehrenborg’s visor
on the day of the stop. (Id.; see Govt’s Ex. 6.) With the tip in mind, Trooper
Case: 2:25-cr-00063-SDM Doc #: 44 Filed: 01/28/26 Page: 6 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>

7
Ehrenborg ran the truck’s USDOT number and confirmed it belonged to Falcon
Trucking and then ran the trailer’s registration and saw that it was registered to a
woman. (Id., 14:22–23, 26:8–13.)
His administrative inspection added to his suspicion. When Trooper
Ehrenborg approached the truck and asked Jovel what he was hauling, Jovel
provided a vague response: “they say general freight.” Trooper Ehrenborg then
asked for Jovel’s bill of lading and logbook, but Jovel was not using electronic logs
as required; when asked why not, Jovel said that he was waiting for “the company”
to give it to him, even though his truck is the only one in Falcon Trucking’s fleet.
And Jovel’s paper logbook had no information for the day of the inspection. As for
the bills of lading, Jovel provided one that was signed and one that was not, and
neither jogged his memory as to what he was hauling.
After Trooper Ehrenborg and Sgt. Williamson reviewed the paper logbook
and discussed the entries (or lack thereof), Sgt. Williamson asked Jovel more
questions about the logbook. Both troopers still thought it was unusual that Jovel
took a week off for his birthday, went and picked up both of his current loads, and
then returned home and went off-duty for 18 hours. Jovel’s log entries added to
Trooper Ehrenborg’s suspicion because for truckers, time is money, and taking time
off after picking up a load is abnormal. (Hr’g. Tr., 59:14–23.) And the paper logbook
was suspicious based on Trooper Ehrenborg’s training and experience because not
having electronic logs means that a truck driver can drive wherever they want.
(Hr’g. Tr., 37:17.) It was at this point in the stop—based on the tip, Jovel’s logbook,
Case: 2:25-cr-00063-SDM Doc #: 44 Filed: 01/28/26 Page: 7 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>

8
and both troopers’ interactions with Jovel—that Trooper Ehrenborg believed he had
reasonable suspicion of additional wrongdoing by Jovel.
Jovel raises several counterarguments. First, he argues that the tip tainted
Trooper Ehrenborg’s observations. (Reply, PAGEID# 137.) But Trooper Ehrenborg
was allowed to consider the tip during his interactions with Jovel. He has 26 years
of experience with the Ohio State Highway Patrol, with at least six years assigned
as a task force officer with the DEA and received specialized training in drug
interdiction. (Hr’g. Tr., 4:25, 6:1, 61:13–17.) So when Trooper Ehrenborg
encountered the subject of a tip he received from another law enforcement officer
with the DEA, he was permitted to use his “own experience and specialized training
to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information” he
learned during the stop. See Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273. The tip was one piece of
information; taken together with Trooper Ehrenborg’s observations, Jovel’s conduct
was objectively suspicious. See, e.g., Jordan, 100 F.4th at 719 (“[C]ourts must assess
whether everything the officer observed, taken together and in context, is
objectively suspicious.”).
Jovel next argues that his unusual hours off, failure to have electronic logs,
and incomplete paper logbook do not create reasonable suspicion. (Reply, PAGEID#
137.) He claims he has innocent explanations for his unusual hours: he was off for
his birthday and visiting a mechanic. (Mot., PAGEID# 83.) As for his failure to use
electronic logs or fill out his paper logbook, Jovel implies he was waiting on a third-
party to provide the electronic logs and waiting to fill out the logbook at the end of
Case: 2:25-cr-00063-SDM Doc #: 44 Filed: 01/28/26 Page: 8 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>

9
his day. (Hr’g. Tr., 90:21–23, 88:25–89:3.) But “an officer doesn’t need to rule out
innocuous explanations for suspicious behavior in order for his suspicion to be
‘reasonable.’” Jordan, 100 F.4th at 719.
Jovel’s divide-and-conquer approach of attacking each observation one-by-one
ignores that reasonable suspicion is a totality of the circumstances analysis. See
Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 267 (“[A court’s] evaluation and rejection of certain factors in
isolation from each other does not take into account the ‘totality of the
circumstances,’ as this Court’s cases have understood that phrase.”). Here, Trooper
Ehrenborg relied on his training and experience and analyzed all the information
(including the tip, Jovel’s logbook violations, and unusual hours) to determine that
the evidence was consistent with the characteristics of a truck driver involved in
drug smuggling.
The Court finds that Trooper Ehrenborg had reasonable suspicion that Jovel
was involved in drug smuggling when he deviated from his administrative
inspection.
III. CONCLUSION
The Motion to Suppress Search of Automobile (ECF No. 31) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Sarah D. Morrison
SARAH D. MORRISON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case: 2:25-cr-00063-SDM Doc #: 44 Filed: 01/28/26 Page: 9 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>