Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Published
Published
No. 14-4049
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge; Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge.
(1:12-cr-00264-WO-1)
Argued:
Decided:
to
suppress
Interstate
85.
evidence
During
that
seized
during
stop,
traffic
deputy
stop
sheriff
on
issued
that
contravened
the
extending
Fourth
the
traffic
Amendment
and
stop
for
that
the
the
Williams
dog
crack
sniff
cocaine
remand.
I.
A.
While
traveling
by
rental
car
through
central
North
At
Russell
Video).
By
its
December
11,
2012
memorandum
See United
patrol
car
(the
Soles
Video).
The
Soles
Video
court
conducted
reconsideration hearing).
second
evidentiary
hearing
(the
but
acquitted
MacMullen.
district
court
prison.
sentenced
Williams
On
January
10,
to
eighty-four
2014,
the
months
in
As
spelled out herein, they are drawn from the First Opinion, the
Superseding Opinion, and other aspects of the record.
Deputies Russell and Soles were separately patrolling I-85
near
Lexington,
North
southbound
Carolina,
during
the
early
hours
of
traveling
close
together.
At
about
and
Russell
stopped
the
second
vehicle,
Hyundai
After
stopping
the
Hyundai,
Deputy
Russell
informed
New
York
license
and
the
rental
Williams then
agreement.
The
According to
13,
2012
(that
afternoon).
Russell
requested
that
Williams exit the Hyundai and sit in his patrol car while he
checked Williamss documents.
as
the
license
check
was
conducted.
Williams
for
couple
alcohol
and
asked
then
days.
Williams
response, Williams
Russell
of
said
asked
he
Deputy
if
had
Russell
he
had
been
consumed
Soles,
who
thought
a
had
he
smelled
drinking.
beer
with
stopped
In
supper.
the
lead
moved his patrol car, containing the drug dog Dakota, to a point
along
the
shoulder
of
I-85
behind
Russells
patrol
car.
Soles
Russell
asked
MacMullen
about
Williamss
alcohol
Williams had had very little to drink and that they were on
their way to Charlotte.
talk
with
Williams
breathalyzer test.
while
awaiting
the
results
of
the
He also told
Soles that the driver of the lead vehicle was his brother and
that the two vehicles were traveling together.
At the initial
the driver of the lead vehicle, who had told Soles that he
wasnt traveling with anybody.
When
Deputy
Russell
returned
to
his
patrol
car,
Deputy
had passed the test and would receive a written warning for
speeding.
complete the written warning, Williams gave the post office box
address of his place of employment in New York, which differed
from
the
New
York
post
office
box
address
on
his
drivers
license.
As Deputy Russell was writing the warning, Deputy Soles
asked Williams where he lived.
in both New York and New Jersey and that he and MacMullen had a
child and lived together.
In
at
the
question.
asked,
12:54:59
patrol
After
Nothing
a.m.
car,
Seconds
Russell
Williams
illegal
in
asked
responded
the
later,
if
he
Williams
could
affirmatively,
car?
as
See
First
was
pose
Russell
Opinion
5.
he
could
equivocated.
search
the
Hyundai
and
Williams
initially
Id. at 7.
seconds
after
Deputy
Russell
issued
the
written
December
Defendants
11,
motions
to
2012,
the
suppress.
district
By
its
court
First
denied
the
Opinion,
the
on
known
drug
were inconsistent
the due date for
extension
for
the
dog
sniff
fell
within
the
Id. at 32.
Soles
Video
was
Brady
material,
however,
and
directly
As a result,
the
the
Defendants
moved
for
reconsideration
of
courts
suppression denial.
3.
At
the
reconsideration
hearing
on
March
21,
2013,
the
The prosecutor,
Soles
acknowledged
that
his
testimony
at
the
initial
10
See
To
the
First
Opinions
factual
recitation,
the
for
speeding. 4
Soles
asked
the
driver
if
he
was
Williamss
Soles
the patrol car, Soles again asked Williamss brother who was
traveling with him.
brother
and
his
prior testimony.
fiance,
See id.
which
further
contradicted
Soless
11
that
the
Governments
argument
for
finding
of
identified.
See
Superseding
Opinion
31.
The
Id. at 40.
II.
A district courts ultimate determination of a reasonablesuspicion question is assessed de novo.
Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 275 (2002); Ornelas v. United States, 517
U.S. 690, 699 (1996).
disturb
factual
findings
made
by
district
court
after
an
12
III.
On
appeal,
Williams
reiterates
his
contention
that
the
articulable
suspicion
that
criminal
activity
is
See 528
the
the
suppression
prosecutors
motions
is
recognize
legally
that
untenable.
their
only
As
viable
13
some
resolution.
Fourth
pertinent
requirement.
detention
principles
that
bear
on
its
Amendment
(1996).
legal
and
is
thus
subject
to
reasonableness
custodial
arrest,
we
analyze
the
555
U.S.
323,
330-31
(2009).
See Arizona v.
Pursuant
thereto,
we
omitted).
In April of this year while this appeal was pending
the Supreme Court decided Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct.
14
1609
(2015).
Rodriguez
held
that,
absent
reasonable,
that,
second
under
Terrys
prong,
the
for
the
Id. at 1614.
necessary
to
accomplish
traffic
stops
purpose,
the
F.3d 498, 507 (4th Cir. 2011); United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d
328, 336 (4th Cir. 2008).
2.
With respect to Terrys first prong whether the reason
for the traffic stop was legitimate Williams does not dispute
that
Deputy
speeding.
Russell
On
was
Terrys
entitled
second
prong
to
stop
the
whether
Hyundai
the
for
officers
stop
it
is
similarly
undisputed
that
Russell
had
Furthermore, Williams
Thus, the propriety
when
Soles
decided
to
conduct
dog
sniff
of
the
Hyundai.
Reasonable
standard
that
suspicion
relies
is
on
the
commonsense,
judgment
of
experienced
States,
517
marks omitted).
U.S.
690,
695
(1996)
nontechnical
law
See Ornelas v.
(internal
quotation
behavior
is
suspicious
or
logically
demonstrate,
the
applicable
principles,
the
relevant
facts
appropriate
hearing,
must
in
their
totality
serve
to
See
United States v. McCoy, 513 F.3d 405, 413 (4th Cir. 2008).
our
McCoy
decision
explained,
however,
each
As
articulated
fact
Id.
case
to
particularized
see
and
whether
the
objective
detaining
basis
16
for
officer
suspecting
has
legal
wrongdoing.
this
framework
in
mind,
we
briefly
address
the
de
extension
of
Williamss
detention
after
In so ruling,
during
which
an
officer
conducted
dog
sniff
of
rejecting
the
de
minimis
rule
for
dog
sniff
and
those
officer
practices
safety
directed
such
as
towards
ensuring
checking
drivers
Governments
endeavor
to
detect
crime
in
general
or
drug
Put simply,
thus
whether,
on
turn
this
to
the
record,
dispositive
Deputies
issue
Russell
in
and
this
Soles
appeal:
had
the
18
See Superseding
Opinion
31.
We
evaluate
those
factors
both
U.S. at 274.
1.
a.
The first factor identified in the Superseding Opinion
the Defendants use of a rental car is of minimal value to the
reasonable-suspicion
evaluation.
Neither
Deputy
Russell
nor
(noting
that
officer
was
concerned
about
rental
car
(4th
Cir.
1990)
([I]llegal
transport
of
drugs
often
the
nations
overwhelming
highways
majority
are
of
innocent
legitimate purposes.
19
rental
car
travelers
drivers
with
on
our
entirely
b.
The second factor relied on in the Superseding Opinion
that the Defendants were traveling on a known drug corridor at
12:37 a.m. is the only factor that, on its face, makes any
reference
to
criminal
activity.
Similar
to
traveling
in
on
those
roads.
Furthermore,
we
are
not
Put
officers
motorists
and
the
use
trial
of
an
courts
are
interstate
entitled
highway
as
to
a
consider
factor
a
in
See,
e.g.,
Digiovanni,
650
F.3d
at
512-13;
accord
United States v. Santos, 403 F.3d 1120, 1132 (10th Cir. 2005)
(observing that prosecution had acknowledged that travel between
20
known drug source and known drug destination was weak factor in
reasonable-suspicion analysis).
Because
there
is
nothing
inherently
suspicious
about
to
more
trafficking.
specific
characteristics
of
narcotics
officer
experience,
testified
drug
that,
couriers
fly
based
to
on
his
Miami
knowledge
from
and
northern
776,
784-85
(4th
Cir.
2004)
(explaining
that
officers
offered
either
no
evidence
in
of
the
suppression
hearings
21
ii.
There is simply no basis on this record for assigning some
nefarious significance to the 12:37 a.m. time of the traffic
stop.
the
proposition
combination
with
that
other
nighttime
factors
travel
identified
in
alone
the
or
in
Superseding
reasonable-suspicion
inquiry
because
actions
that
may
appear
as
harbinger
circumstances.
See
of
537
criminal
F.3d
at
activity
336.
It
under
different
follows
that
22
is
an
unreliable
indicator,
especially
in
the
context
of
traffic stop).
The
Superseding
Opinion
relied
on
two
Tenth
Circuit
factor
States
in
v.
its
reasonable-suspicion
Clarkson,
551
F.3d
1196
analysis.
(10th
Cir.
See
2009);
night stop of a vehicle that the police had just seen parked in
front of a house that was under surveillance for suspected drug
dealing, violent crime, prostitution, and gang activity.
551
F.3d
at
1198.
After
stopping
the
vehicle,
an
See
officer
Id. at 1199.
Id.
established
reasonable,
articulable
23
suspicion
of
ongoing
criminal activity.
114
F.3d
at
1029.
We
agree
that
street
crime
and
public
trafficking
night.
of
This
drugs
record
or
other
does
not
contraband
make
an
is
more
evidentiary
common
at
connection
combination
with
Superseding Opinion.
stop
of
Williams
the
other
factors
identified
in
the
at
about
12:37
a.m.
does
not
Superseding
on
what
Opinions
the
district
analysis
court
of
its
third
characterized
factor
as
the
that
reasonable
[i]mplausible
suspicion,
travel
but
plans
prudently
can
contribute
emphasized
that
to
the
in
the
rate.
Id.
(footnote
omitted).
Common
experience suggests, the Santos decision recognized, that lawabiding rental car users frequently extend the rental without
incurring
Superseding
penalty
Opinion
or
paying
similarly
higher
acknowledged
rate.
that
Id.
The
[t]here
are
See
Superseding
Opinion
25-26
(quoting
United
States v. Boyce, 351 F.3d 1102, 1110 n.6 (11th Cir. 2003)).
agree with that proposition.
We
rental agreement may suggest that the drivers travel plans are
uncertain or subject to change, but, without more, not that they
are implausible.
Mindful
that
travelers
frequently
extend
rental
Deputy Soles
Deputy
J.A. 39.
Hyundai
was
due
in
New
Jersey
later
that
day,
Williams
1528, 1535 (10th Cir. 1996) (noting that McRaes evident lack
of concern, unusually cavalier attitude, and vague response
regarding
how
contributed
he
to
would
return
reasonable
experienced officer).
his
rental
suspicion
in
car
a
correctly
trained
and
traffic stop, the Hyundai had been rented through Hertz, a wellknown car rental business with locations most everywhere.
We do not doubt that the third factor, if it had been
keyed
to
contribute
other
to
an
compelling
experienced
suspicious
officers
of
criminality
travel
plans
reasonable
might
suspicion.
arises
were
behavior,
from
likely
26
the
to
mere
exceed
fact
the
that
initial
d.
The
Superseding
Opinions
fourth
factor
specified
that
fully
describe
what
occurred
during
the
traffic
stop.
either
Deputy
Russell
or
Deputy
Soles
with
his
home
address, the record shows that neither deputy asked Williams for
it.
Distilled
from
the
Superseding
Opinions
unwarranted
Williams
gave
Williams
provided
post
office
differed
box
from
address;
the
address
(2) the
on
his
nor Deputy Soles explained how using a post office box address,
or living in New York and New Jersey, raised some suspicion of
criminal
aspect
of
activity.
the
fourth
In
fact,
factor
neither
as
officer
suspicious.
identified
Although
it
any
is
. . .
It didnt affect.
J.A. 54.
post
office
hypothesized
that
explanations
Williams
raised suspicion.
the
box
address,
different
gave
for
the
district
addresses
them
may
have
court
and
[the]
legitimately
and
rental
agreement
in
his
name
with
Maryland
The officers
was
fraudulent.
Id.
at
182-83.
Newland
was
also
visibly nervous, and when asked why he had used the Maryland
address
on
the
rental
agreement,
28
he
hesitated
before
Id. at 182,
addresses
reasonably
including
aroused
the
one
on
officers
fake
drivers
suspicion.
license
Id.
at
189.
Id. at 188.
succinctly,
Deputies
Russell
and
Soles
failed
to
develop the fourth factor with Williams during the traffic stop
and offered no explanation of how that factor contributed to any
reasonable
suspicion.
Absent
some
factual
underpinning,
the
That
in
their
totality,
See
eliminate
substantial
Id. at 413.
Furthermore, an
or
logically
demonstrate,
given
the
surrounding
because
the
four
factors,
taken
together[,]
. . .
See
Williams
relies
decision
rejected
the
on
our
governments
appeal
in
Digiovanni.
and
affirmed
There,
we
suppression
The officer in
was
driving
rental
car
on
I95,
For example,
which
was
reasonable suspicion.
importance,
however,
officer
specified
two
other
Of
factors
known drug source state and rented a car for the return trip
to the northeast.
Id. at 512-13.
were trembling when he handed over his drivers license and the
rental [car] contract.
Id. at 512.
Id. at 512-13.
drug
investigation.
Id.
at
513.
At
bottom,
all
the
Digiovanni
decision
that
are
is
Id.
consistent
with
the
Eleventh
materially
indistinguishable
from
the
Boyce
31
See
351
F.3d
factors,
at
1109. 7
in
their
reasonable
suspicion
The
Eleventh
totality,
because
Circuit
were
they
ruled
insufficient
would
likely
that
to
those
create
apply
to
in
the
Superseding
Opinion
dual
residency
and
differing addresses.
is
it
uncommon
employers address.
for
person
to
receive
at
his
post office box addresses one need only leaf through the
nearest magazine or journal for a subscription insert.
Finally,
aggregate
fail
innocent travelers.
to
eliminate
substantial
portion
of
32
such
showing,
the
governments
contention
fails
to
pass
constitutional muster. 8
b.
Even
if
the
Superseding
Opinions
four
factors
were
to
yet
Williamss
demonstrated
prevail.
The
particular
behavior
that
his
deputies
behavior
was
was
neither
articulated
suspicious
nor
indicative
of
how
logically
some
more
is
well
settled
that,
in
the
reasonable-suspicion
See
33
Were it otherwise, an
(cautioning
against
the
inclination
of
the
Government
indicia
omitted)).
of
suspicious
Put
authorities
simply,
articulate
or
activity
our
(internal
precedent
logically
quotation
requires
demonstrate
that
marks
the
connection
See Foster,
initial
hearing,
Deputy
Soles
testified
generally
At
that,
prior to ordering the dog sniff, I had already kn[own] and seen
for myself indicators commonly associated with those that are
involved
in
criminal
activity.
See
J.A.
86.
He
later
to
search
or
conduct
K-9
scan
when
we
see
activity,
and[,]
due
to
the
totality
of
those
Deputy Russell
testified
in
the
reconsideration
hearing
that
the
factors
question
prosecution
the
is
experience
obliged
of
to
present
officers,
evidence
but
We do
the
articulating
reasonable suspicion.
Having assessed de novo the reasonable-suspicion question,
we
are
simply
possessed
not
convinced
reasonable,
activity
during
completed
stop
the
of
Deputies
articulable
traffic
the
that
stop.
Hyundai
to
Russell
suspicion
Extending
conduct
of
the
dog
and
Soles
criminal
otherwise-
sniff
thus
IV.
Pursuant to the foregoing, we vacate Williamss conviction
and sentence and remand for such other and further proceedings
as may be appropriate.
VACATED AND REMANDED
35