United States v. Patrick Winters
782 F.3d 289, 2015 FED App. 0057P, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5143 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An officer may extend a lawfully initiated traffic stop after its initial purpose has been completed to conduct a dog sniff if, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer has developed a reasonable and articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.
Facts:
- On August 9, 2012, Officer Jason Duggan stopped a rental car for speeding, driven by Jessica Harris with Patrick J. Winters as the passenger.
- Harris appeared very nervous, and her hands trembled as she produced her license.
- The rental agreement showed the car was rented in Atlanta four hours earlier by Winters's cousin, who was the sole authorized driver, and was due in Chicago the following evening.
- Harris stated they were traveling from Georgia to Memphis, a 200-mile detour from a direct route to Chicago, which was implausible for a car rented for less than 24 hours.
- When questioned separately, Harris and Winters gave conflicting accounts of their travel plans, including the duration of their stay in Memphis and how Harris would return to Atlanta.
- After Officer Duggan completed a warning ticket for Harris, he extended the stop to deploy his drug-detection dog, Red.
- Red alerted to the presence of narcotics on the passenger side of the car.
- A subsequent search revealed a one-kilogram package of heroin in Winters's bag on the back seat.
Procedural Posture:
- Patrick J. Winters was charged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee with possession with intent to distribute heroin.
- Winters filed a motion to suppress the drug evidence, arguing it was obtained through an unconstitutional search and seizure.
- A magistrate judge conducted an evidentiary hearing and issued a report and recommendation to deny the motion to suppress.
- The district court adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation and denied Winters's motion to suppress.
- Winters entered a conditional guilty plea, which preserved his right to appeal the court's denial of his suppression motion.
- Winters, as the appellant, appealed the district court's decision 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 an officer violate the Fourth Amendment by extending a completed traffic stop for approximately four minutes to conduct a dog sniff when facts gathered during the stop give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity?
Opinions:
Majority - Boggs, Circuit Judge
No. The extension of the traffic stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the officer had developed reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The court determined that under the totality of the circumstances, several factors combined to create a reasonable, articulable suspicion justifying the brief extension. These factors included the occupants' nervousness, their inconsistent and implausible travel plans, and the suspicious nature of the rental agreement where neither occupant was an authorized driver. The court emphasized that while each factor viewed in isolation might be consistent with innocent behavior, their cumulative weight was sufficient to warrant further, brief investigation. The court also rejected Winters's argument that Florida v. Jardines requires probable cause for a dog sniff of a vehicle, holding that Jardines's trespass rationale is specific to the home and does not alter the established precedent for traffic stops.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the 'totality of the circumstances' test for establishing reasonable suspicion to extend a traffic stop. It clarifies that a collection of individually weak or seemingly innocent factors—such as nervousness, odd travel plans, and third-party vehicle rentals—can collectively amount to a valid basis for suspicion. The decision also serves to wall off the heightened Fourth Amendment protections for the home established in Florida v. Jardines from the context of vehicle searches, thereby preserving the lower reasonable suspicion standard for prolonging a traffic stop for a dog sniff. This provides law enforcement with continued flexibility in highway interdiction, while reminding courts to consider the aggregate effect of suspicious circumstances rather than analyzing them in isolation.
