United States v. Brigham
2004 WL 1854552, 382 F.3d 500 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
During a valid traffic stop, a police officer's actions, including questioning occupants on subjects unrelated to the stop's initial purpose, are evaluated under a totality of the circumstances reasonableness standard and do not violate the Fourth Amendment so long as the detention is not unreasonably prolonged.
Facts:
- State Trooper Shannon Conklin initiated a traffic stop of a Buick sedan driven by Reginald Brigham for following another vehicle too closely.
- Brigham provided his driver's license and a rental agreement for the vehicle, which listed Dorothy Harris, a 50-year-old woman not present in the car, as the sole lessee.
- When questioned by Conklin, Brigham appeared extremely nervous, avoided eye contact, and stated that the lessee, Dorothy Harris, was his mother.
- Conklin separately questioned a passenger, Brandon Franklin, who also appeared nervous and gave an account of the group's travel plans that conflicted with Brigham's statement.
- Conklin then questioned the two remaining passengers, who gave inconsistent statements about when the group had arrived at their destination.
- Eight minutes after initiating the stop and after questioning all four occupants, Conklin returned to his patrol car to run computer checks on the IDs and the vehicle registration.
- The results of the computer checks revealed that one passenger, Brandon Franklin, had provided a fictitious I.D. card.
- While waiting for a computer check on Franklin's true identity, Conklin obtained Brigham's consent to search the vehicle and discovered liquid codeine syrup in the trunk.
Procedural Posture:
- Reginald Brigham was indicted by a federal grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for possessing codeine with intent to distribute.
- Brigham filed a motion to suppress the evidence, which the district court (trial court) denied.
- Brigham entered a conditional plea agreement, preserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
- Brigham (Appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where a three-judge panel reversed the district court's decision, holding the stop was unconstitutional.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit voted to rehear the case en banc (with a larger panel of the court's judges).
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 a police officer unconstitutionally prolong a valid traffic stop in violation of the Fourth Amendment by questioning the vehicle's occupants about their travel plans before running computer checks on their licenses and vehicle registration?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Edith H. Jones
No. A police officer's actions during a traffic stop are judged by their reasonableness under the totality of the circumstances, and Trooper Conklin's graduated response to the emerging facts did not unconstitutionally prolong the detention. The Fourth Amendment's touchstone is reasonableness, which eschews bright-line rules like requiring an officer to run a computer check before asking questions. Questioning, even on subjects unrelated to the initial traffic violation, is not itself a Fourth Amendment violation; the focus is on whether the detention becomes unreasonably long. Here, Conklin developed reasonable suspicion based on the unauthorized driver of a rental car, the occupants' extreme nervousness, and their conflicting stories. His questioning before running computer checks was a diligent and efficient part of an investigation that was reasonably related to dispelling his growing suspicions, including the possibility that the car was stolen. The detention was not unreasonably prolonged but was instead justified by the continuously developing facts.
Dissenting - Judge DeMoss
Yes. Trooper Conklin unconstitutionally extended the detention by questioning the occupants about matters unrelated to the traffic stop before running computer checks that would have quickly dispelled any suspicion. The majority's holding allows an officer to conduct an end-run around this Circuit's precedent, which prohibits continued detention after computer checks come back 'clean' without independent reasonable suspicion. Instead of diligently pursuing the quickest means of investigation (running the computer checks), Conklin engaged in a 'fishing expedition' to develop suspicion where none initially existed. This transforms a minor traffic stop into a full-blown interrogation, eroding Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizures. The officer lacked a particularized and objective basis to suspect wrongdoing beyond the traffic violation, and the prolonged questioning was therefore an unconstitutional extension of the stop.
Analysis:
This en banc decision solidifies the Fifth Circuit's approach to the scope of traffic stops, rejecting a rigid, formulaic analysis in favor of a flexible 'totality of the circumstances' reasonableness standard. It clarifies that there is no mandated sequence of events an officer must follow, such as running computer checks before asking questions. This ruling provides law enforcement with greater latitude to investigate suspicions that arise during a stop, so long as the overall duration and scope of the detention remain reasonable. The decision effectively moves away from a 'least intrusive means' or 'stopwatch' test, focusing instead on whether an officer's actions are a diligent and graduated response to evolving facts.
