United States v. Ronald D. Brown, Jr.
1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 19663, 188 F.3d 860, 192 A.L.R. Fed. 729 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the totality of the circumstances, a collection of individually insufficient factors—such as an FBI tip regarding drug activity, the smell of marijuana, a suspect's unusual nervousness, and presence in a high-crime area—can collectively establish the reasonable suspicion required for a law enforcement officer to conduct a pat-down search for weapons during a lawful traffic stop.
Facts:
- The FBI informed Indiana State Trooper Dean Wildauer that a specific blue Chevy SUV was involved in a drug operation and asked him to stop it.
- Wildauer located the vehicle, observed it committing traffic violations (speeding and following too closely), and initiated a traffic stop in an area known for high crime, drug activity, and recent shootings.
- While speaking with the driver, Ronald Brown, Wildauer smelled a strong odor of marijuana smoke coming from the car.
- Wildauer asked Brown to step out of the vehicle; Brown appeared unusually nervous, avoided eye contact, and repeatedly glanced back at his car, where other passengers lowered the tinted windows.
- Wildauer conducted an initial pat-down of Brown's baggy clothing and felt two hard objects, one in a pocket and another in Brown's groin area, which he believed could be a weapon.
- During a second, more focused pat-down to identify the object in Brown's groin, Brown pushed Wildauer and fled on foot.
- After being apprehended, a search incident to arrest revealed a bag containing three rocks of crack cocaine tied to the drawstrings of Brown's pants in his groin area.
Procedural Posture:
- Ronald Brown filed a motion to suppress the crack cocaine evidence in the U.S. District Court, arguing it was obtained through an illegal search.
- The district court held a hearing and denied the motion to suppress.
- Brown entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the district court's denial of his suppression motion.
- Brown, as the appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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 conduct a pat-down search for weapons during a valid traffic stop when considering the totality of the circumstances, including an FBI tip of drug involvement, the odor of marijuana, the driver's excessive nervousness, and the location in a high-crime area?
Opinions:
Majority - Ilana Diamond Rovner
No, the pat-down search does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the officer had reasonable suspicion. The court held that the pat-down search was justified under the totality of the circumstances. While each factor alone—the FBI tip, the marijuana smell, Brown's nervousness, or the high-crime location—might not have been sufficient, their combined weight created a reasonable suspicion that Brown was engaged in criminal activity and could be armed and dangerous. The court noted that drug dealing is a 'crime infused with violence,' which strengthens the rationale for an officer to fear for their safety. The scope of the second search was also deemed reasonable, as the officer was attempting to determine if a hard object he felt, which he believed could be the butt of a small handgun, was in fact a weapon.
Analysis:
This case serves as a clear application of the 'totality of the circumstances' test for establishing reasonable suspicion under Terry v. Ohio. It reinforces the principle that a series of individually innocent or weak indicators can cumulatively provide a constitutional basis for a pat-down search. The decision highlights the judiciary's willingness to consider the dangerous nature of drug trafficking as a key factor in justifying protective frisks. This precedent provides law enforcement with significant latitude during traffic stops where multiple indicia of drug activity are present, even if none of them rise to the level of probable cause on their own.
