A Blair County judge has rejected a defense request to suppress evidence — 3 pounds of methamphetamine and a small amount of cocaine — found by state police during a March traffic stop along I-99.

A trooper stopped a vehicle being driven by Victor Bones Colon, 43, of Philadelphia, for speeding and having an expired registration.

But, almost immediately, the trooper became suspicious that Colon and his passenger, Ramon De Leon Guillen, 33, also of Philadelphia, were carrying illegal drugs.

The trooper was soon joined by a second officer, at which point Colon was asked for consent to search the vehicle.

Colon, it is alleged, agreed to the search.

After finding the drugs, police charged both men with possession with intent to deliver and other lesser drug offenses. Colon was also charged with several motor code violations.

Soon after the arrests, Hollidaysburg attorney Kristen Leigh Anastasi, representing both men, filed a motion to suppress the drugs.

Suppression would mean the drugs could not be used as evidence during trial and the charges would be dismissed.

The question before the court was whether the men gave their consent to search their vehicle.

The defense contended both men are native Spanish speakers who “barely — if at all — understand English.”

The argument was that Colon and Guillen did not understand what the trooper was asking and therefore they did not give valid consent to search the vehicle.

The motion to suppress came before Blair County Judge Wade A. Kagarise in June and late last week, he denied the suppression request.

Kagarise issued a 16-page opinion that focused on police power to conduct warrantless searches.

The judge explained both the U.S. and Pennsylvania constitutions protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Warrantless searches are presumed to be unreasonable, he noted, but there is an exception — if law enforcement receives valid consent.

Consent, he explained, must be given “freely and voluntarily,” and not coerced in any way.

“Without valid consent or an applicable exception, the Fourth Amendment requires that unlawfully obtained evidence be inadmissible at trial,” he stated in his opinion.

During a hearing on the issue, the trooper who made the stop denied that the two men were unable to converse and understand English.

Both spoke “plain English” during the stop and, according to the trooper, who does not speak Spanish, he had no reason to doubt either defendant’s “fluency and comprehension” as to his request to search.

The opinion also pointed out both men have lived for several years in Philadelphia.

Twice in his opinion, the judge noted that both the trooper and the defendants appeared “calm and polite” during the traffic stop, another indication there was no language barrier.

For instance, while the trooper interviewed Guillen, Colon was permitted to walk around and smoke a cigarette, Kagarise noted.

The defense also attacked the trooper’s alleged suspicion that the men were carrying illegal drugs.

The defense maintained the trooper was acting on a “hunch” that they were delivering illegal drugs and therefore their detention for a lengthy period of time along the side of the road was unwarranted.

Kagarise explored in his opinion what led the officer to suspect criminality was afoot.

The trooper during the hearing said he was first alerted by the fact that there was only one key on the keyring Colon was using.

He then noticed there was no luggage in the vehicle and that neither man was the owner of the vehicle.

And the men told inconsistent stories on their plans in traveling from Philadelphia to Altoona.

The trooper also noted in his mind that there is a “known drug connection between Philadelphia and Altoona.”

A records check at the scene then indicated Colon had a prior history of drug offenses.

The judge ruled that based on the trooper’s observations, there was enough there for him to suspect criminal activity.

Kagarise then reviewed 10 factors established by the courts in past cases to determine if the trooper used coercion, threats or force to gain consent to search — including the weather that day. It was chilly but sunny and the defendants were dressed appropriately while standing outside the vehicle, the judge reported.

“This court determines that after the above analysis the totality of the circumstances indicate that defendants voluntarily consented to the search,” Kagarise concluded.

State court records show that the next step in the case will be a formal arraignment for both men in the Blair County Court of Common Pleas.

The defendants will be tried together, according to the opinion.