Lexplug logoLexplug

State v. Berrios

Tennessee Supreme Court
235 S.W.3d 99, 2007 Tenn. LEXIS 745, 2007 WL 2332968 (2007)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

During a routine traffic stop, an officer may not frisk a driver and place them in a locked patrol car without a reasonable, particularized justification, such as a reasonable suspicion that the driver is armed and dangerous. Any consent to search obtained as a direct result of such an unconstitutional seizure is invalid unless sufficiently attenuated from the illegal conduct.


Facts:

  • On February 25, 2004, Officer Kelly Nichols of the West Tennessee Drug Task Force observed Eric Berrios driving fifty-three miles per hour in a forty-five miles per hour construction zone.
  • Officer Nichols initiated a traffic stop, and Berrios pulled his vehicle over to the shoulder of the highway.
  • The officer approached the vehicle, obtained Berrios's license and registration, and immediately directed him out of the car.
  • Without any suspicion that Berrios was armed or dangerous, Officer Nichols frisked him for weapons, found none, and placed him in the locked backseat of the patrol car.
  • While Berrios was detained in the patrol car, Officer Nichols questioned him about his travel plans and asked for consent to search his vehicle.
  • Berrios agreed to the search, and Officer Nichols, with the help of a canine unit, discovered more than three hundred grams of cocaine hidden in the vehicle's fender.
  • Officer Nichols later admitted his purpose for placing Berrios in the patrol car was not safety or weather, but to see if Berrios's anxiety level would increase as an investigatory tool.

Procedural Posture:

  • Eric Berrios was charged in a Shelby County trial court with possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine.
  • Berrios filed a motion to suppress the cocaine, arguing it was seized in violation of his constitutional rights.
  • The trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence.
  • The State, as appellant, was granted an interlocutory appeal to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
  • The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's order suppressing the evidence, finding the officer's conduct illegal.
  • The State then sought and was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an officer's action of frisking a motorist and placing them in the locked back of a patrol car during a routine traffic stop, without reasonable suspicion that the motorist is armed and dangerous or another particularized justification, constitute an unreasonable seizure that invalidates a subsequent consent to search?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Gary R. Wade

Yes, an officer's action of frisking a motorist and placing them in a locked patrol car during a routine traffic stop without a reasonable, particularized justification constitutes an unconstitutional seizure that invalidates subsequent consent to search. The court reasoned that while ordering a driver out of a car is a de minimis intrusion for officer safety under Pennsylvania v. Mimms, the act of frisking without reasonable suspicion and placing a person in a locked patrol car is a significant intrusion akin to a full-scale arrest, not a routine traffic stop. The officer admitted he lacked suspicion that Berrios was armed and that his primary motive was to use the detention as an investigatory tool. Because this seizure was unconstitutional from the moment of the 'frisk and sit,' the subsequent consent to search was tainted. Applying the factors from Brown v. Illinois, the court found the consent was not sufficiently attenuated from the illegality because there was no time lapse or intervening circumstances between the unlawful detention and the consent, and the officer's misconduct was flagrant in that the stop's purpose was drug interdiction, not traffic enforcement.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the constitutional limits on police conduct during routine traffic stops in Tennessee. It establishes that the 'frisk and sit' maneuver, where an officer frisks a driver and places them in a patrol car without specific justification, exceeds the permissible scope of a Terry stop and constitutes an unreasonable seizure. The ruling reinforces that the duration and methods of a traffic stop must be reasonably related to the initial purpose of the stop. By adopting the Brown v. Illinois attenuation factors for consent following an illegal seizure, the court provides a clear framework for lower courts to determine when evidence obtained via consent must be suppressed as 'fruit of the poisonous tree.'

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query State v. Berrios (2007) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for State v. Berrios