Fourth Amendment-Good Faith Exception

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Ausencio Martinez

Case No.: 24-1890

Officials: Scudder, Kirsch, and Pryor, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Fourth Amendment-Good Faith Exception

The Martinez was stopped in Illinois after state police received information from another law enforcement agency indicating that his tractor-trailer was transporting a large quantity of narcotics. In anticipation of the truck’s arrival, two K9 troopers, who were not engaged in routine patrol duties, positioned themselves along the highway during the early morning hours. The stop was purportedly conducted as a Level 3 administrative inspection under Illinois’s commercial vehicle regulatory scheme, which authorizes inspections of a driver’s credentials and vehicle documentation. During the inspection, the trooper observed what he believed to be indicators of criminal activity, including the odor of air freshener and inconsistencies regarding the driver’s route and cargo. A subsequent canine sniff of the truck resulted in the discovery of narcotics, and the driver was arrested.

The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the stop was a pretextual administrative inspection conducted solely to advance a criminal investigation in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Central District of Illinois denied the motion, concluding that the trooper’s subjective motivation was immaterial because the stop was authorized under Illinois’s administrative inspection framework.

The Seventh Circuit reversed. The court held that, unlike ordinary traffic stops, an officer’s actual purpose is relevant when a warrantless search or seizure is justified under the administrative inspection exception to the Fourth Amendment. Based on the record, the court determined that the stop was undertaken exclusively to further a criminal investigation rather than to enforce the state’s commercial trucking regulations. Because the government failed to establish that the stop was justified at its inception as a valid administrative inspection, the court held that the resulting search violated the Fourth Amendment. The court further concluded that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule was inapplicable.

Reversed and remanded.

Decided 07/06/26

Full Text