United States v. Warren Green, IV
897 F.3d 173 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An officer may extend a lawful traffic stop to investigate other criminal activity if the officer develops reasonable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances. Information gathered during a prior, recent encounter with the same individual, including the scent of contraband or the individual's criminal history, can contribute to reasonable suspicion for a subsequent stop, even if a search during the prior encounter yielded no contraband.
Facts:
- On April 3, 2013, Pennsylvania State Trooper Michael Volk stopped a vehicle with two men and a dog, suspecting drug trafficking.
- The next day, April 4, Volk stopped Warren Charles Green, IV, for a window tint violation. Green said he was driving to Philadelphia for an indeterminate time to visit family.
- During the April 4 stop, Volk learned Green had prior arrests for drug and weapon offenses. Green consented to a vehicle search, during which Volk smelled raw marijuana in the trunk but found no illegal substances.
- On April 5, approximately 26 hours later, Volk saw Green's vehicle traveling in the opposite direction and initiated a traffic stop after determining Green was speeding.
- Volk observed a dog in Green's car that he believed resembled the dog from the April 3 stop.
- When Volk questioned Green about his quick return from Philadelphia, Green initially gave a casual response about having a dog, and only after being pressed did he claim his daughter had broken her leg, causing him to rush back.
Procedural Posture:
- Warren Charles Green, IV was charged in U.S. District Court with possession with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin.
- Green filed a motion to suppress the heroin, claiming it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- The District Court held an evidentiary hearing and denied Green's suppression motion.
- Following the denial, Green entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the court's ruling on the motion to suppress.
- Green was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 120 months of imprisonment.
- Green (appellant) appealed the denial of his suppression motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where the United States was the appellee.
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's extension of a lawful traffic stop to conduct a drug investigation violate the Fourth Amendment when the officer's reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of the circumstances, including the driver's misleading statements, the smell of marijuana detected during a fruitless search the previous day, and the driver's prior drug-related arrests?
Opinions:
Majority - Fisher, Circuit Judge.
No. The extension of the traffic stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the trooper possessed reasonable suspicion that Green was engaged in criminal activity. The court found that under the totality of the circumstances, the trooper had a particularized and objective basis to justify prolonging the stop for a canine sniff. The court's reasoning was based on the combination of three primary factors known to the trooper at the moment the stop was extended: (1) Green's misleading and suspicious statements about his travel plans, which shifted from a casual explanation to a family emergency only after questioning; (2) the odor of raw marijuana detected in Green's trunk during the consensual search the previous day, which retained probative value despite the search being unsuccessful; and (3) Green's criminal history of prior arrests for drug and firearm violations. The court explicitly rejected the argument that the fruitless search on April 4 created a 'clean slate,' holding that all prior facts could be considered as part of the whole picture in assessing suspicion on April 5.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of Rodriguez v. United States by demonstrating how reasonable suspicion can be developed from a series of encounters. The court established that a prior unsuccessful search does not immunize a suspect or erase suspicious facts from consideration in a subsequent, independent stop. By emphasizing a holistic 'totality of the circumstances' approach over a 'divide-and-conquer' analysis, the ruling provides law enforcement with significant latitude to connect patterns of behavior over time. The case is also notable for its pragmatic handling of the 'Rodriguez moment,' assuming the earliest possible extension of the stop to provide maximum protection to the defendant's rights while still finding the officer's actions justified.
