IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
SANTOS JIMENEZ-CARABALLO, 
Defendant. 
 
) 
) 
) 
 
) 
 
) 
Case No. 3:24-cr-0014 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
ORDER 
 
BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant Santos Jimenez-Caraballo’s Motion to Suppress 
Physical Evidence, filed on August 12, 2024. (ECF No. 31.) The Government filed an 
opposition on August 23, 2024. (ECF No. 35.) The Court held an evidentiary hearing on March 
13, 2025. Having reviewed the written submissions of the parties and heard the arguments 
of counsel and upon due consideration thereof, for the reasons stated on the record, the 
Court will deny the motion. 
 
First, the Court finds that the automobile exception to the search warrant 
requirement is applicable in this matter. See, e.g., Pa. v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938, 940 (1996) 
(stating “[i]f a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains 
contraband, the Fourth Amendment thus permits police to search the vehicle without more” 
(citation omitted)). Second, the Court questions whether a traffic stop even occurred for 
purposes of a Fourth Amendment search and seizure as the Defendant did not yield to a show 
of authority. See United States v. Waterman, 569 F.3d 144, 146 n.3 (3d Cir. 2009) (stating that 
a submission to authority “requires, at a minimum, that a suspect manifest compliance with 
police order”). Nevertheless, in the event such a traffic stop occurred, the Court finds that the 
Case: 3:24-cr-00014-RAM-GAT     Document #: 44     Filed: 03/13/25     Page 1 of 3
United States v. Jimenez-Caraballo 
Case No. 3:24-cr-0014 
Order 
Page 2 of 3 
 
law enforcement agents had both probable cause and reasonable suspicion, based upon the 
totality of circumstances, to believe that the driver of the vehicle was involved in criminal 
activity. See Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 102 (1959) (opining that probable cause 
justifies a seizure without a warrant “if the facts and circumstances known to the arresting 
officer warrants a prudent man in believing that an offense had been or was being 
committed”). Third, with regard to the search of the vehicle and seizure of the contents 
therein, the Court finds that the driver of the vehicle abandoned the vehicle by fleeing the 
vehicle before the law enforcement agents approached and displaying an intent to abandon 
the contents therein. See United States v. Curran, 638 Fed. Appx. 149, 153-54 (3d Cir. 2016); 
see also United States v. Smith, 648 F.3d 654, 660 (8th Cir. 2011) (holding that suspect 
abandoned the vehicle he was driving “’when he left the car open, with the keys in the 
ignition, the motor running, in a public area’ and then ran from the police”). Assuming, 
arguendo, that the driver did not abandon the vehicle, the Court finds that the law 
enforcement agents had probable cause to search the vehicle after the driver fled under the 
automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Labron, 518 U.S. at 940; see also California 
v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 394-95 (1985) (explaining the basis for the automobile exception to 
the warrant requirement). 
 
Accordingly, it is hereby 
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, ECF No. 31, is DENIED; it is further 
ORDERED that the parties SHALL file their respective notices of readiness for trial 
no later than March 31, 2025; it is further  
Case: 3:24-cr-00014-RAM-GAT     Document #: 44     Filed: 03/13/25     Page 2 of 3
United States v. Jimenez-Caraballo 
Case No. 3:24-cr-0014 
Order 
Page 3 of 3 
 
ORDERED that the parties SHALL file and serve a pre-trial brief no later than April 
4, 2025, which shall include the following: (a) proposed list of witnesses; (b) proposed list 
of exhibits; (c) estimated length of case-in-chief and case-in-defense; (d) proposed non-
standard voir dire questions; (e) proposed non-standard jury instructions related to the 
elements of the charges and defenses; and (f) whether there are any discovery issues 
outstanding; it is further 
ORDERED that the parties SHALL provide the Clerk of Court with a USB Flash Drive 
containing electronic versions of exhibits no later than April 10, 2025;1 and it is further 
ORDERED that the Jury Selection and Trial shall commence promptly at 9:00 a.m. on 
April 14, 2025, in St. Thomas Courtroom 1. 
 
Dated: March 13, 2025 
 
/s/ Robert A. Molloy  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
ROBERT A. MOLLOY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Judge 
 
1 Counsel are advised to consult with Court technical staff to determine the proper format for saving electronic 
versions of exhibits. The Government’s trial exhibits shall be labelled sequentially beginning with 
Government’s Exhibit 1. Defense exhibits shall be labelled sequentially beginning with Defense Exhibit A. Hard 
copies of exhibits will not be allowed absent a showing of exceptional circumstances. 
Case: 3:24-cr-00014-RAM-GAT     Document #: 44     Filed: 03/13/25     Page 3 of 3