United States v. Arthur T. Weaver
966 F.2d 391 (1992)
Rule of Law:
Under the Fourth Amendment, a law enforcement officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain a traveler's luggage based on the totality of the circumstances, even when individual factors viewed in isolation might be consistent with innocent behavior.
Facts:
- Arthur T. Weaver arrived at Kansas City International Airport on a direct flight from Los Angeles, a known source city for drugs.
- DEA Agent Carl Hicks observed Weaver, who he described as a "roughly dressed young black male," walking rapidly towards a taxi stand while carrying two bags.
- Hicks and two other officers approached Weaver, who stated he was in Los Angeles looking for his sister.
- When questioned, Weaver could not produce an airline ticket or any personal identification, and the officers observed that he appeared extremely nervous, with a shaky voice and trembling hands.
- Hicks asked to search Weaver's bags; Weaver first consented but then immediately withdrew his consent, stating the officers needed a warrant.
- Weaver then said he needed to see his mother in the hospital, picked up his bags, and walked toward a taxicab.
- As Hicks informed Weaver that he was detaining the luggage to seek a warrant, Weaver entered a taxi with both bags.
- Hicks attempted to remove one bag from the taxi, and Weaver began hitting Hicks's hand, leading to his arrest.
Procedural Posture:
- After his arrest, a search of Weaver and his bags revealed cocaine, and he was charged with possession with intent to distribute in federal court.
- Weaver filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing it was obtained through an unconstitutional seizure, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
- The district court (a trial court) held a hearing and denied the motion to suppress.
- Weaver entered a conditional guilty plea, which allowed him to preserve his right to challenge the denial of his suppression motion on appeal.
- The district court sentenced Weaver.
- Weaver (as appellant) appealed the district court's denial of his suppression motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did law enforcement officers have a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity, sufficient to justify the temporary seizure of a traveler's luggage under the Fourth Amendment, based on a combination of factors including his arrival from a known drug source city, his appearance matching a drug courier profile, his rapid pace, his lack of identification or ticket, and his extreme nervousness?
Opinions:
Majority - Wollman, Circuit Judge
Yes. The law enforcement officers had a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity based on the totality of the circumstances. The court reasoned that while individual factors—such as arriving from a source city, walking quickly, lacking identification, or appearing nervous—might seem innocent in isolation, their combination created a reasonable suspicion. Citing United States v. Sokolow, the court emphasized that the relevant inquiry is the degree of suspicion that attaches to a series of acts viewed together. The officers considered Weaver's arrival from Los Angeles, his resemblance to members of known drug-trafficking gangs, his rapid pace, lack of ticket or ID, and extreme nervousness, which collectively rose above a mere 'hunch' and justified the detention of his bags under the standard set by Terry v. Ohio.
Dissenting - Arnold, Chief Judge
No. The officers did not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion, and the seizure was therefore unconstitutional. The dissent argued that the facts were indistinguishable from a prior circuit case, United States v. White, where a seizure was found illegal. The factors relied upon by the officers were weak and common to many innocent travelers: many people dress casually, carry on luggage, lose their tickets, and have a right not to produce identification. The dissent was highly critical of the reliance on Weaver's race, viewing it as dangerous stereotyping that presumes criminality in large groups of citizens. It concluded that the subjective assessment of nervousness and the use of broad, interchangeable courier profile characteristics threaten to turn airports into 'war zones' where Fourth Amendment protections are seriously eroded.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the flexibility and fact-intensive nature of the 'totality of the circumstances' test for reasonable suspicion under Terry v. Ohio. The decision demonstrates the court's deference to law enforcement's experience-based inferences in airport stop cases, allowing a combination of individually innocent behaviors to collectively justify a seizure. The opinion's acknowledgment of race as a contributing factor, while cautioning it cannot be the sole factor, highlights the ongoing tension between effective law enforcement tactics and the potential for racial profiling. The strong dissent underscores the fine line between reasonable suspicion and an unconstitutional 'hunch,' arguing that such decisions can lead to inconsistent outcomes and the erosion of Fourth Amendment rights.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: United States v. Arthur T. Weaver (1992)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"