United States v. Mohamed
600 F.3d 1000 (2010)
Rule of Law:
A brief extension of a completed, lawful traffic stop to conduct a canine sniff of a vehicle is a de minimis intrusion on a driver's liberty and does not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures.
Facts:
- At 3:04 a.m. on May 25, 2005, Minnesota State Patrol Corporal Robert Frisby stopped a car driven by Elias Mohamed because its rear license plate was not illuminated.
- Mohamed stated he was driving a borrowed car from a funeral in Minneapolis back to Kansas City.
- Trooper Frisby observed that Mohamed seemed unusually nervous, his breathing was heavy, he could not maintain eye contact, and some of the car's interior door panels were loose.
- At 3:11 a.m., Trooper Frisby completed a warning ticket and told Mohamed he was "good to go," thereby concluding the purpose of the initial traffic stop.
- As Mohamed was leaving, Trooper Frisby asked for consent to search the car, which Mohamed denied.
- Trooper Frisby then detained Mohamed, stating he had reasonable suspicion to run a drug dog around the car.
- At 3:16 a.m., five minutes after the stop had concluded, the canine search began, and the dog alerted to the vehicle within thirty-five seconds.
- A subsequent search of the vehicle's trunk revealed documents pertaining to fraudulently obtained Missouri commercial driver’s licenses.
Procedural Posture:
- Elias Mohamed was charged in U.S. District Court with conspiracy to commit mail fraud.
- Mohamed filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in his car, arguing the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
- A U.S. Magistrate Judge held a suppression hearing and recommended that the motion to suppress be denied, concluding the detention was a de minimis intrusion.
- The district court adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation, denying Mohamed's motion.
- Following a trial, a jury found Mohamed guilty of the charge.
- Mohamed (appellant) appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, challenging the denial of his suppression motion.
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 five-minute detention of a motorist after the purpose of a lawful traffic stop has been completed in order to conduct a canine sniff of the vehicle violate the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Lange, District Judge
No. A brief, five-minute detention following the conclusion of a lawful traffic stop for the purpose of a canine sniff is a de minimis intrusion on personal liberty and does not constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The initial traffic stop was lawful, and the probable cause for the subsequent vehicle search was established by the positive alert from the drug-sniffing dog. The dispositive issue is the legality of the detention between the completion of the stop and the canine sniff. Citing precedent from the Eighth Circuit, the court held that a lawful stop that is reasonably prolonged for a canine sniff constitutes only a de minimis intrusion on a defendant's liberty. In this case, the five-minute delay was comparable to delays found permissible in prior cases like Alexander (four minutes) and Martin (two minutes). Furthermore, while not required for a de minimis intrusion, Trooper Frisby possessed reasonable suspicion based on Mohamed's elevated nervousness, his travel story, the loose interior door panels, and his inability to maintain eye contact, which independently justified the brief continued detention.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'de minimis intrusion' doctrine within the Eighth Circuit, providing law enforcement a limited timeframe to prolong a traffic stop for investigatory purposes like a canine sniff even after the initial purpose of the stop is complete. The ruling suggests that the Fourth Amendment reasonableness test involves balancing the brief intrusion against law enforcement interests, rather than applying a rigid rule that any detention after the stop's conclusion is unconstitutional. This creates a circuit-specific standard that contrasts with a brighter-line rule and gives officers more discretion, though it was later clarified by the Supreme Court in Rodriguez v. United States (2015) that such extensions require independent reasonable suspicion.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: United States v. Mohamed (2010)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"