United States v. Jaime Perez (04-5440) Walter Rhodes (05-5373)
2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 6094, 440 F.3d 363, 2006 WL 618789 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An investigative stop based on reasonable suspicion may be continued, even after one investigative technique fails to produce evidence, if police are diligently pursuing other means of investigation likely to confirm or dispel their suspicion in a short period of time.
Facts:
- Based on a tip from the Houston DEA, Nashville DEA agents began surveillance on a pearl-white Cadillac Escalade EXT believed to be involved in large-scale drug trafficking.
- On September 9, 2002, agents observed the Escalade, occupied by Perez, Flores, and Barrera, driving evasively and making a brief, suspicious rendezvous at a gas station.
- The next day at a Residence Inn, agents saw Perez and Flores move from Room 1024 to Room 213, retrieve two duffle bags, and return to the Escalade.
- The Escalade then met with a Ford Explorer in the hotel parking lot, where several individuals including Rhodes gathered.
- Rhodes moved the two duffle bags from the Escalade's passenger area to its rear.
- Shortly after, Flores and another man, Starks, removed the same two heavy-looking duffle bags from the Escalade and placed them into a nearby parked Chevrolet Tahoe.
- Perez, Rhodes, and Flores then drove away from the hotel in the Escalade, leaving the Tahoe behind in the parking lot.
Procedural Posture:
- Jaime Perez and Walter Rhodes were charged in a two-count federal indictment with conspiracy and possession with intent to deliver cocaine.
- In the U.S. District Court, Perez and Rhodes filed motions to suppress the evidence, arguing it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the defendants' motions to suppress.
- Perez entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the court's denial of his suppression motion.
- Rhodes proceeded to trial and was convicted on both counts.
- Perez and Rhodes (appellants) separately appealed the district court's denial of their suppression motions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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:
Does the continued detention of suspects violate the Fourth Amendment if it extends beyond the completion of a consensual search and after a drug-sniffing dog fails to alert on a related vehicle, but while officers are actively pursuing other related investigative leads?
Opinions:
Majority - Ralph B. Guy, Jr.
No, the continued detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment. An investigative detention must be temporary and last no longer than necessary, but courts assess reasonableness by examining whether police diligently pursued an investigation likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly. The court found the initial stop was justified by reasonable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances, including the DEA tip, evasive driving, use of two hotel rooms, and the unusual transfer of heavy bags into a 'dead drop' vehicle (the Tahoe). The continued detention after the consensual search and the first dog's failure to alert was reasonable because the agents were simultaneously pursuing other leads, such as obtaining hotel records and searching the hotel rooms. Furthermore, the agents had a reasonable belief that the first dog failed to alert because the bags had not been in the Tahoe long enough for the odor to escape, a theory supported by the fact that both the second dog, and the first dog on a second pass, later alerted. The search of the Tahoe was independently justified by the probable cause created by the positive dog alerts.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the 'diligently pursued' standard for the duration of a Terry stop, particularly in complex, multi-faceted investigations. It establishes that a single negative investigative result, such as an initial failed dog sniff, does not automatically dissipate reasonable suspicion and require the release of suspects. The decision gives law enforcement more latitude to continue a detention so long as they are actively engaged in other reasonable and prompt investigative efforts. This precedent is significant because it allows courts to consider the totality of the ongoing investigation, rather than focusing on a single failed technique, when determining if the length of a detention was constitutionally reasonable.
