United States v. Pack
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 14562, 2010 WL 2777061, 612 F.3d 341 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An officer may extend a lawful traffic stop beyond the time needed to address the initial violation if facts emerging during the stop, such as a passenger's extreme nervousness and irreconcilable stories between occupants, create a reasonable suspicion of general criminal activity.
Facts:
- On February 26, 2006, Texas DPS Trooper Brian Worley stopped a vehicle driven and owned by Courtney Williamson for speeding on Interstate 30.
- Kevin Pack was the only passenger in the vehicle.
- Worley observed that Pack was extremely nervous, with heavy breathing, shaking hands, and a visibly pulsing carotid artery.
- When questioned separately by Worley, Williamson stated she and Pack were returning from visiting her sick aunt in Houston.
- Pack, however, told Worley they were coming from visiting friends in Dallas after staying with his relatives in San Antonio, and he was unaware of Williamson having any family in Texas.
- Confronted with the conflicting stories, Williamson refused to consent to a search of the vehicle.
- Worley called for a canine unit, and the dog subsequently alerted to the trunk of the vehicle.
- A search of the trunk revealed two duffel bags containing 17.91 pounds of marijuana and a Luger pistol.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury indicted Kevin Pack on one count of possession of marihuana with intent to distribute and one count of using a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
- Pack filed a motion to suppress the evidence in the U.S. District Court, arguing it was the fruit of an illegal detention.
- A magistrate judge held a hearing and issued a report recommending the motion be denied on the grounds that Pack lacked standing to challenge the search of the vehicle.
- The U.S. District Court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and denied Pack's motion to suppress.
- Pack entered a conditional guilty plea to the firearm charge, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
- Pack (appellant) appealed the district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, with the Government (appellee) conceding standing but arguing the detention was constitutional.
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 extending a traffic stop beyond the time necessary to address the initial violation constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment where the officer's suspicion is based on a passenger's extreme nervousness, conflicting travel stories between the driver and passenger, and their presence on a known drug-trafficking corridor?
Opinions:
Majority - Garwood, Circuit Judge
No, extending the traffic stop did not constitute an unreasonable seizure. An officer's detention of a vehicle's occupants beyond the time needed to investigate the initial traffic violation is permissible if the officer develops reasonable suspicion of additional criminal activity. Here, the combination of Pack’s extreme nervousness, the irreconcilable stories told by Pack and Williamson about their travel itinerary, and the fact they were on a known drug trafficking corridor, gave the experienced officer a particularized and objective basis for suspecting general criminal activity was afoot. The officer was not required to have suspicion of a specific crime; rather, the totality of the circumstances justified a reasonably prolonged detention to investigate further, such as by calling a canine unit.
Dissenting - Dennis, Circuit Judge
Yes, extending the traffic stop constituted an unreasonable seizure. The majority usurps the district court's role by making its own finding of reasonable suspicion from a cold record. The district court erred by focusing on standing and never determining whether the officer had a reasonable articulable basis to suspect Pack of a crime. Furthermore, under circuit precedent like United States v. Dortch, a suspect's nervousness and inconsistent stories are insufficient to create reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking. The case should be remanded for the district court to make the initial determination of reasonable suspicion based on witness credibility and the totality of the circumstances.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and arguably lowers the threshold for establishing reasonable suspicion to prolong a traffic stop in the Fifth Circuit. By holding that its en banc decision in United States v. Brigham effectively abrogated the stricter standard from United States v. Dortch, the court moves away from requiring an officer to have suspicion of a specific crime. Instead, reasonable suspicion of general criminal activity is sufficient, giving officers more latitude to extend detentions based on a combination of factors like nervousness and conflicting stories. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants to challenge prolonged stops where their conduct, while not pointing to a specific offense, appears generally suspicious to an experienced officer.
