United States v. Dortch
1999 WL 1251873, 199 F.3d 193 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Once the purpose of a valid traffic stop has been completed, police may not further detain a driver or their vehicle unless they have developed reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity. Evidence obtained as a direct result of such an unconstitutional, prolonged detention is inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.
Facts:
- Highway patrol officers Rick Anderson and Robert Ener stopped a vehicle driven by Cecil Dortch, purportedly for traveling too close to a tractor-trailer.
- Upon request, Dortch produced his license and rental papers for the car.
- The officers noted that the car was rented to a third party, Nicki Bender, and that Dortch was not listed as an authorized driver.
- When questioned, Dortch and his female passenger gave inconsistent answers regarding their relationship to Bender and their recent travels.
- The officers initiated a computer check for warrants and to determine if the vehicle was stolen.
- After approximately 14-15 minutes, the computer check was completed, showing no outstanding warrants for Dortch and no report that the car was stolen.
- Despite the completion of the computer check, the officers continued to detain Dortch and the vehicle, retaining his license and rental papers, to wait for a canine unit they had called.
- After the canine unit arrived and alerted on the car's driver's side door, an officer conducted a third pat-down search of Dortch and discovered a plastic baggie containing cocaine in his crotch area.
Procedural Posture:
- Dortch was indicted in a federal trial court for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and conspiracy.
- Dortch filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the cocaine evidence, arguing it was obtained through an unconstitutional search and seizure.
- The trial court held a suppression hearing and denied the motion, finding that the officers had probable cause and that Dortch had consented to the search.
- Following a trial, a jury returned guilty verdicts on both the possession and conspiracy counts.
- The trial court subsequently granted Dortch's motion for acquittal on the conspiracy count but entered a judgment of conviction on the possession count.
- Dortch (appellant) appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress.
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 continuing to detain a driver for a canine sniff after the purpose of the initial traffic stop has been completed, without reasonable suspicion of further criminal activity, violate the driver's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures?
Opinions:
Majority - Jerry E. Smith
Yes. Continuing to detain a driver after the purpose of the initial traffic stop is complete, without new reasonable suspicion, constitutes an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The initial stop and detention during the computer check were permissible under Terry v. Ohio. However, the justification for the detention ended once the computer check came back negative, as this resolved any suspicion that the car was stolen. The officers lacked independent, articulable suspicion of drug trafficking; nervousness and inconsistent stories about a third-party rental car were insufficient. Therefore, the detention became unlawful at the moment it was extended beyond the completion of the computer check. Although a canine sniff is not a search, its use here occurred during an illegal seizure. Consequently, the probable cause generated by the dog's alert was fruit of the poisonous tree. Dortch's subsequent consent to the third pat-down was not an independent act of free will sufficient to purge the taint of the illegal detention, as the officers retained his documents and his previous refusal to a car search had been ignored. Thus, the cocaine discovered must be suppressed.
Dissenting - Garwood
No. The continued detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment. First, the officers possessed reasonable suspicion of contraband trafficking sufficient to justify the brief continued detention. This suspicion was based on the laminated total of several factors: Dortch's nervousness, inconsistent and likely fabricated stories about a two-day trip with no luggage, conflicting accounts of his relationship to the renter, and the fact that he was an unauthorized driver of a third-party rental car, a common tactic in drug trafficking. Second, even if reasonable suspicion was lacking, Dortch had no standing to challenge the detention of the vehicle because, as an unauthorized driver, he had no legitimate expectation of privacy or possessory interest in it. Since his personal seizure was merely a practical consequence of the vehicle's lawful detention, his Fourth Amendment rights were not violated.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the temporal limits of a traffic stop under Terry v. Ohio, clarifying that a stop's duration must be strictly tied to its original justification. The court establishes that once the mission of the stop is complete (e.g., computer checks are finished), the detention must end unless officers have developed new, independent reasonable suspicion. This case significantly impacts police procedure by preventing officers from using a routine traffic stop as a pretext to prolong a detention for a 'fishing expedition' like waiting for a canine unit without sufficient cause. It also sets a high bar for the government to prove that consent given during an illegal seizure is a truly independent act of free will, separating the voluntariness of consent from the causal connection to the prior illegality.
