United States v. Moore

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
2015 WL 4570506, 795 F.3d 1224, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13320 (2015)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Law enforcement may prolong a traffic stop to conduct a canine sniff if the totality of circumstances—including extreme nervousness, criminal history, and suspicious vehicle registration—creates reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Additionally, a police dog's instinctual entry into a vehicle through an open window does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the dog alerts to the odor of narcotics prior to entering.

Facts:

Trooper Villines stopped Moore for driving 73 mph in a 70 mph zone in a Chrysler Sebring with California plates.
During the stop, Moore exhibited signs of extreme nervousness, including shaking hands, lack of eye contact, rapid heart rate, and an immediate request to smoke, which persisted even after he was told he would only receive a warning.
Trooper Villines noted that the vehicle's registration listed both Moore and a female with a different last name, and Moore admitted his name had only been added to the registration one week prior.
After returning Moore's documents and issuing a warning, the trooper asked for consent to search the vehicle, which Moore refused.
Trooper Villines detained Moore to conduct a dog sniff of the vehicle.
Trooper Fike arrived with a narcotics-detection dog named Jester, who alerted by snapping his head toward the vehicle while outside.
Jester then jumped through the driver's side window, which Moore had left open, without being prompted by the officers.
Following the dog's behavior, officers searched the trunk and discovered a sawed-off shotgun and ammunition.

Procedural Posture:

The United States indicted Moore in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on firearm and ammunition charges.
Moore filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the traffic stop, arguing unlawful detention and illegal search.
The District Court denied Moore's motion to suppress.
Moore entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of being a felon in possession of ammunition, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.
Moore appealed the District Court's denial of his motion to suppress to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth 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 a police officer have reasonable suspicion to detain a driver after a traffic stop concludes based on the driver's extreme nervousness and vehicle registration anomalies, and does a drug-detection dog's entry into the vehicle through an open window constitute an illegal search?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Judge Briscoe

Yes and No. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling, holding that the detention was supported by reasonable suspicion and the dog's entry was not an illegal search. The court reasoned that while nervousness alone is usually insufficient to justify detention, Moore's nervousness was 'extreme and persistent' and did not dissipate after the warning was issued. When combined with Moore's admission of a criminal past and the recent addition of his name to the vehicle registration—a tactic often used by drug couriers—the totality of the circumstances provided reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. regarding the search, the court found that the dog validly 'alerted' to the odor of drugs while outside the vehicle, which established probable cause to search before the dog ever entered. Furthermore, the dog's entry into the car was instinctual rather than orchestrated by the officers, and the window had been left open by Moore, meaning the officers did not physically manipulate the vehicle to facilitate the entry.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the 'totality of the circumstances' approach to reasonable suspicion in traffic stops, specifically clarifying how 'nervousness' is weighed. While ordinary nervousness is of limited value, the Tenth Circuit distinguishes 'extreme and persistent' nervousness as a more significant factor when combined with other indicators like vehicle registration irregularities. The case is also significant for its treatment of canine searches, establishing that a dog's 'alert' (a change in behavior) is sufficient for probable cause even without a final 'indication' (sitting or staring). It further solidifies the precedent that a police dog's instinctual entry into a vehicle through an open aperture does not constitute a Fourth Amendment violation provided the police did not encourage the entry or open the access point themselves.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Moore (2015)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"