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 detention may be extended beyond its initial purpose if officers are diligently pursuing a means of investigation likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly. A negative alert from one drug-sniffing dog does not automatically dispel reasonable suspicion if officers have a plausible explanation for the failure and are simultaneously pursuing other investigative leads.
Facts:
- DEA agents in Houston informed Nashville agents that a pearl-white Cadillac Escalade EXT with temporary Kentucky license plates was suspected of involvement in large-scale drug trafficking and might be in Tennessee.
- In Nashville, agents located the Escalade and observed it being driven erratically in a manner suggesting an attempt to evade surveillance.
- The following day at a Residence Inn, agents observed Jaime Perez and Mario Flores move luggage from Room 1024 into the Escalade, then briefly enter Room 213 and emerge with two additional duffle bags.
- In the hotel parking lot, Perez and Flores met with Walter Rhodes and others, who were with a Ford Explorer.
- Rhodes moved two duffle bags from the Escalade's passenger area to its rear.
- Immediately after, Flores and another man, Sean Starks, took those same two duffle bags, which appeared to be heavy, from the Escalade and placed them in the back seat of a nearby, unoccupied Chevrolet Tahoe.
- Perez, Rhodes, and Flores then drove off in the Escalade, while the others departed in the Explorer, leaving the Tahoe behind in the parking lot.
Procedural Posture:
- Jaime Perez, Walter Rhodes, and others were charged in a two-count indictment in the U.S. District Court with conspiracy and possession with intent to deliver cocaine.
- Perez and Rhodes filed pretrial motions to suppress the evidence found in the Chevrolet Tahoe, 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 to the conspiracy count, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
- Rhodes proceeded to trial and was convicted by a jury on both counts.
- Perez and Rhodes, as appellants, appealed the district court's denial of their suppression motions to the United States 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 for approximately 90 minutes after an initial stop violate the Fourth Amendment when consensual searches of their vehicles are fruitless and a drug dog fails to alert on a related third vehicle, but police are simultaneously pursuing other diligent investigative measures?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Guy
No. The continued detention of the suspects did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the police were diligently pursuing a means of investigation likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions in a short period of time. The initial stop was justified by reasonable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances, including the DEA tip, evasive driving, and the highly suspicious transfer of heavy bags between vehicles, which resembled a 'dead drop' drug transaction. The detention's length was reasonable because while the suspects were detained, agents at the hotel were actively investigating, including attempting to access the hotel rooms and arranging for canine sniffs of the Tahoe. The failure of the first drug dog to alert did not dispel reasonable suspicion because agents had a plausible reason to believe the drug odor had not yet had sufficient time to permeate the vehicle, making the use of a second dog a reasonable investigative technique. Ultimately, the probable cause for the search of the Tahoe arose independently from the second dog's positive alert and was not a product of the suspects' detention.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the flexible nature of the 'reasonable duration' standard for a Terry stop, emphasizing the importance of diligent and continuous investigation by law enforcement. It clarifies that a single piece of exculpatory evidence, such as a negative dog sniff, does not automatically terminate reasonable suspicion if other inculpatory factors remain and officers are pursuing multiple investigative avenues. By distinguishing this case from others where a negative alert was dispositive (like United States v. Davis), the court provides law enforcement with greater latitude to extend detentions so long as their actions are purposeful and aimed at quickly resolving their suspicions. This ruling makes it more difficult for defendants to challenge the length of a detention solely based on a single failed investigative step.
