Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 14-4736
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:14-cr-00031-RGD-DEM-1)
Argued:
Decided:
rendered
explained
its
below,
ruling
we
are
in
favor
satisfied
of
that
the
the
government.
officers
As
did
not
I.
A.
In April 2014, the federal grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia,
indicted Palmer
distribute
on
crack
two
offenses:
cocaine,
in
possession
contravention
with
of
intent
21
to
U.S.C.
drug
and
firearm
evidence
underlying
the
charges,
which
the
district
court
denied
Palmers
motion
to
police
neighborhood.
was
patrolling
that
citys
Ipswich
When Ring
exited his patrol car and greeted Palmer through the driver-side
window of the Nissan, he smelled an overwhelming odor of air
freshener.
had been stopped because the Nissans windows were too darkly
tinted,
in
violation
of
state
law,
and
also
because
the
the
drivers
license
and
registration
Officer
Ring
learned that Palmer listed a P.O. box as his address and that
3
the
Nissan
Within
was
minutes
registered
of
to
beginning
woman
the
who
database
was
not
check,
present.
Ring
also
See Opinion 2.
Ring
LInX system because his former partner had changed the password.
He eventually accessed LInX, however about seven minutes into
the
traffic
credentials.
stop
by
utilizing
Officer
Blounts
login
Palmer
in
LInX.
Ring
learned
that
Palmer
had
LInX search, Ring returned to the Nissan from his patrol car.
Because he suspected the inspection sticker was fraudulent, Ring
decided to verify the stickers authenticity by looking at the
back of it, which would enable him to determine whether it was
legitimate.
through the open driver-side door and examined the back of the
inspection
sticker.
While
reading
the
sticker
which
he
See
Opinion 3.
after the traffic stop had been initiated Ring called Officer
Duncan, who had a drug dog.
They
discovered
clear
plastic
bag
containing
Wesson
pistol
wedged
between
5
the
drivers
seat
and
the
console.
and
arrest,
Ring
measurements
measured
confirmed
the
Nissans
Rings
initial
window
tint.
suspicion
Those
that
the
April
29,
2014,
the
district
court
conducted
Officer
Ring
the
prosecutions
only
an
During the
witness
He also
he
sticker.
said,
The
shows
back
the
of
legitimate
perforated
portion
inspection
and
contains
being
overly
demeanor.
fresheners,
cooperative
Id.
Ring
but
Regarding
explained
still
very
Palmers
that
drug
nervous
liberal
in
his
of
air
often
use
use
traffickers
vehicle
if
it
is
registered
to
someone
not
present.
and
prior
criminal
record.
Ring
stated
that
[c]riminal street gangs are known for violence and that his
7
Id.
passenger
compartment
smell[ed]
the
checking
marijuana
very
the
inspection
faintly
before
sticker,
his
he
sense
of
Ring
made
at
least
two
other
observations
that
First, Palmer
According to
Id.
He said
divert
suspicion
from
himself
as
they
waited
for
he helps the police and that he ha[d] a contact [in] the police
department.
As
the
ended,
the
district
court
remarked
that
it
lawfully,
was
the
inclined
court
took
to
believe
the
that
Ring
suppression
had
acted
motion
under
advisement.
C.
On May 5, 2014, within a week of the evidentiary hearing,
the district court filed its Opinion denying the suppression
motion. 3
stopped
violation
the
and
Nissan,
a
based
fraudulent
on
suspicions
inspection
of
sticker.
window
The
tint
Opinion
See Opinion 9.
the
Nissans
windows
P.O.
were
box
registered
in
substantial
portion
of
innocent
travelers
Id.
and
That is,
beyond
its
original
scope
and
duration
as
soon
as
he
Id.
10
entry
search
of
reasonable
stickers
to
the
check
the
inspection
Nissan,
the
Opinion
suspicion
. . .
authenticity,
and
to
sticker
concluded
investigate
that
he
had
constituted
that
the
Ring
had
inspection
dispelled
that
entitled to delay searching the vehicle and wait for a drug dog. 5
In sum, the Opinion ruled that Officer Ring had made a
legitimate traffic stop, that he had sound reasons for extending
the stop, and that his subsequent actions did not violate the
Fourth Amendment.
therefore denied.
11
II.
We review de novo a district courts rulings with respect
to
reasonable
suspicion
and
probable
cause.
See
Ornelas
v.
When a district
III.
On appeal, Palmer contends that Officer Ring did not have
any objectively reasonable basis for initiating the traffic stop
of the Nissan, and that Ring unreasonably expanded the scope of
the stop shortly after it began.
entry
into
the
constitutionally
Ring
Nissan
to
view
impermissible.
legitimately
stopped
Palmer
inspection
government
for
sticker
counters
suspected
as
that
traffic
In that
Pursuant
thereto,
we
first
assess
whether
the
See
United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 875 (4th Cir. 1992).
Second, we examine whether the actions of the authorities during
the traffic stop were reasonably related in scope to the bases
for the seizure.
whenever
it
is
lawful
for
police
to
detain
an
violation
may
include
failure
to
Without question,
comply
with
traffic
See, e.g., United States v. Green, 740 F.3d 275, 279 n.1
Cir.
2014)
(concluding
that
windows
illegally
tinted
Maryland
law
that
prohibits
following
another
vehicle
too
closely).
In assessing the legitimacy of a traffic stop, we do not
attempt to discern an officers subjective intent for stopping
the vehicle.
(4th
Cir.
2008).
We
simply
ask
whether
517
U.S.
806,
813
(1996)
the
circumstances,
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted); United States v. Johnson, 734 F.3d 270, 275 (4th Cir.
2013)
(observing
that
traffic
stop
is
legitimate
when
second
that
traffic stop.
prong
police
restricts
officer
may
the
take
range
after
of
permissible
initiating
checks that do not bear directly on the reasons for the stop,
such as requesting a drivers license and vehicle registration,
or
checking
warrants.
for
criminal
records
and
outstanding
arrest
1615-16 (2015).
remain on the bases for the traffic stop, in that the stop must
be sufficiently limited in scope and duration to satisfy the
conditions of an investigative seizure.
14
Guijon-Ortiz,
660
F.3d
757,
764
(4th
Cir.
2011)
(internal
when
following
up
on
the
initial
reasons
for
traffic stop, the officer must employ the least intrusive means
reasonably available to verify or dispel [his] suspicion in a
short
period
of
time.
See
Digiovanni,
650
F.3d
at
507
not require that the officer employ the least intrusive means
conceivable.
(1985)
(A
judge
engaged
in
post
hoc
evaluation
of
which
the
accomplished.).
objectives
of
the
police
might
have
been
it
is
prolonged
beyond
the
405,
407
(2005).
Put
time
reasonably
required
to
differently,
an
officer
cannot
he
receives
the
motorists
consent
or
develops
15
Reasonable
standard
that
suspicion
relies
is
on
the
commonsense,
judgment
of
experienced
States,
517
U.S.
690,
695
(1996)
nontechnical
law
See Ornelas v.
(internal
quotation
marks omitted).
Williams,
articulated
the
factors
supporting
reasonable
unless
he
obtains
consent,
secures
warrant,
or
is
sufficient
to
establish
such
probable
cause,
see
United
16
B.
1.
With
respect
to
Terrys
first
prong
whether
Officer
asserts
that
Ring
lacked
any
objectively
reasonable
Ring was familiar with the limits on window tint under Virginia
law
and,
Palmer
in
his
points
to
view,
the
nothing
Nissans
that
windows
indicates
were
the
too
dark.
district
court
States
(concluding
testimony
v.
McGee,
that
district
regarding
erroneous).
736
F.3d
263,
courts
inoperative
271
(4th
reliance
brake
light
Cir.
on
was
See
2013)
officers
not
clearly
stopped,
Palmer
acknowledges
that
when
an
officer
has
See
Br.
While
of
Appellant
checking
the
17
31
(internal
Nissans
quotation
inspection
marks
sticker,
to
believe
the
vehicle
contained
unless
Palmer
can
contraband,
and
was
demonstrate
some
constitutional
violation between the time the stop began and the point that
Ring smelled marijuana, the evidence cannot be suppressed. 6
that
regard,
Palmer
asserts
that
Ring
transgressed
In
Terrys
second prong by taking actions during the traffic stop that were
not reasonably related in scope to the initial bases for the
stop.
a.
According to Palmer, Officer Ring unreasonably expanded the
scope
of
the
investigation.
stop
by
beginning
an
unjustified
drug
motorist
stopped
by
the
police
is
obliged
to
endure
the
driver
has
criminal
record
or
outstanding
18
See Michigan
the
immediate
interest
of
the
police
officer
in
investigating
violation.
See
a
Br.
window
of
tint
or
Appellant
18.
inspection
To
sticker
describe
that
at
281
(observing
that
concern
for
safety
did
Officer
Rings
detention
of
Palmer
prior
to
traffic
stop.
We
are
satisfied
that,
after
accessing
suspicion
that
Palmer
was
engaged
in
criminal
eliminated
substantial
portion
of
innocent
travelers
and
The
Palmer was in
suspected
drivers
member
license
of
listed
the
a
Bounty
P.O.
box
Hunter
Bloods;
address,
rather
Palmers
than
See Opinion
9.
Palmer
insists
that
most
of
those
factors
relate[]
to
activity.
He fails to appreciate,
circumstances,
and
may
well
exist
even
if
each
fact
See
United States v. McCoy, 513 F.3d 405, 413-14 (4th Cir. 2008)
(footnote omitted).
Resolving
whether
the
the
reasonable-suspicion
articulated
factors,
taken
question
turns
together,
showed
on
a
of
perfectly
behaviors
and
deception.
omitted).
mundane,
circumstances
innocent,
and
weave
and
easily
them
into
explained
a
web
of
we
have
recognized
with
respect
to
reasonable-
We do not,
v. Foster, 634 F.3d 243, 248 (4th Cir. 2011) ([A]n officer and
21
drug
activity
there.
See
Branch,
537
F.3d
at
338
It is compelling
Ring
knew
that
the
Bloods
had
threatened
law
are
as
frequently
narcotics
involved
in
distribution.
organized
See
criminal
J.A.
86.
activity
Ring
also
Indeed, he had
knowledge
of
prior
criminal
involvement
with
more
At
odor
from
multiple
air
fresheners
and
Palmers
travelers
criminal activity. 7
and
demonstrated
connection
to
possible
23
b.
Palmer
also
maintains
that
Officer
Ring
conducted
to
Palmer,
Rings
actions
constituted
the
most
that Ring did not conduct a search within the meaning of the
Fourth Amendment, and argues that Ring was simply seeking a
better look at an item that a motorist is legally required to
display
on
enforcement.
[his]
vehicle
for
ready
inspection
by
law
Palmer
examination
frames
of
his
the
contention
regarding
Officer
sticker
in
inspection
Rings
terms
of
reasonableness.
Rings
the
illegal
entry
into
search,
Palmer
Nissan
must
on
the
show
ground
that
he
had
716
F.3d
828,
832
(4th
Cir.
that
it
was
an
legitimate
See United v.
2013)
(relying
on
Palmer has
He therefore cannot
834-35
(recognizing
that
defendant
who
fails
See id.
to
show
consequently,
that
Officer
Ring
lacked
reasonable
to
investigate
the
sticker.
We
evaluate
those
F.3d at 764.
When
reviewing
particularly
factual
defer
to
findings
for
district
clear
error,
courts
[w]e
credibility
Opinion
credited
Officer
Rings
testimony
regarding
the
relying
on
Rings
observations
that
he
had
seen
Ring could not see, from outside the Nissan, the perforated
portion that sits in the middle of the sticker and is designed
to prevent sticker theft by detaching.
Id.
Moreover, the
court itself examined the sticker both in the video [of the
traffic stop] and in a photograph that Palmer introduced into
evidence.
of
the
evidence,
the
Opinion
found
that
the
clearly erred.
with
inspection
required
we
agree
Officer
stickers,
to
that
the
facts
Rings
support
investigate
the
recited
training
the
reasonable
stickers
Opinion 12.
26
and
by
the
court,
experience
with
suspicion
Ring
authenticity.
See
iii.
Finally, Palmer argues that, even if Officer Ring possessed
a
reasonable
suspicion
that
the
inspection
sticker
was
Palmer
See Br.
of
we
Appellant
33.
In
assessing
those
alternatives,
must
the
least
intrusive
means
reasonably
available
to
Digiovanni,
650
F.3d
at
507
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
The burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of Officer
Rings conduct is on the government.
We are mindful, of
Id.
Again,
clearly
erroneous.
See
Abu
Ali,
528
F.3d
at
232.
In
registration
information.
27
The
Opinion
also
observed
Nor
has
any
significance.
Ring
was
entitled
to
ask
him
reach
compartment.
for
something
out
of
sight
in
the
passenger
government
showing
that
has
Rings
therefore
means
satisfied
of
its
investigating
burden,
the
readily
inspection
these
circumstances,
we
are
convinced
that
no
IV.
Pursuant to the foregoing, the judgment of the district
court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
29
emphasize
background
that
while
the
Supreme
from
its
list
checks
I write separately
Court
of
omitted
ordinary
criminal
inquiries
135
S.
Ct.
1609,
1615
(2015),
this
Court
in
United
States v. Green, 740 F.3d 275 (4th Cir. 2014), held that a
traffic
stop
background
was
check
reasonably
because
prolonged
the
in
drivers
order
to
demeanor
and
conduct
behavior
order
officer safety.
In
this
[against
the
driver]
raised
concerns
about
Id. at 281.
case,
the
specific
circumstances
of
the
stop
gang
record] here.
for
[inquiring
Ante, at 19.
30
into
the
motorists
criminal