United States v. White
804 F.3d 132 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle if they have probable cause, based on the totality of the circumstances, to believe it contains contraband. Probable cause can be established by a confidential informant's tip that has been sufficiently corroborated through police investigation.
Facts:
- In August 2012, a confidential informant (CI) informed MDEA Special Agent Seth Page that Adam White was a large-scale cocaine distributor.
- Working with Page, the CI made two controlled purchases of cocaine from White inside his vehicle, first in August 2012 and again in December 2012.
- In early February 2013, the CI reported to Page that White was planning to 'restock' his cocaine supply.
- On February 12, 2013, at Page's direction, the CI placed a recorded call to White and ordered an ounce of cocaine, which White agreed to deliver soon.
- Approximately ten minutes after the call, surveillance agents observed White and his girlfriend leaving his residence in his black Cadillac.
- While following White's vehicle, an MDEA agent visually estimated that White was speeding in a school zone.
- After officers initiated a traffic stop, a drug-sniffing dog named Aros was brought to the scene and alerted to the presence of narcotics at the driver's side door.
- A subsequent search of White's person revealed cocaine, and a search of his car uncovered a firearm and a pound of cocaine in the trunk.
Procedural Posture:
- Adam White was indicted in federal district court on one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
- White filed a motion for discovery to compel the government to disclose records of the drug-sniffing dog's prior performance in the field.
- The district court denied White's motion for discovery.
- White then filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in his vehicle and at his home, arguing the search was unconstitutional.
- After a two-day hearing, the district court denied the motion to suppress, ruling that officers had probable cause to search the vehicle under the automobile exception, independent of the dog sniff.
- White entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
- White (Defendant-Appellant) appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First 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 probable cause exist to search a vehicle under the automobile exception when law enforcement has a corroborated tip from a reliable confidential informant about an impending drug transaction, even if the subsequent traffic stop and dog sniff were based on a pretext?
Opinions:
Majority - Stahl, J.
Yes. The warrantless search of White's vehicle was permissible under the automobile exception because officers had probable cause to believe the car contained evidence of drug dealing activity before the dog sniff occurred. The court's reasoning, based on the totality of the circumstances, focused on the reliability of the confidential informant. The informant demonstrated a basis for first-hand knowledge, and law enforcement substantially corroborated his tips, most significantly by conducting two prior controlled buys of cocaine from White in his vehicle. The final recorded phone call—where White agreed to sell cocaine to the CI and was then observed leaving his home shortly thereafter—created a 'fair probability' that his car contained contraband at that moment. Because this independent probable cause existed at the time of the stop, the pretextual nature of the traffic stop and the subsequent dog sniff were legally irrelevant to the validity of the search.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the strength of the automobile exception and the 'totality of the circumstances' test for probable cause. It clarifies that a constitutionally sound basis for a search, such as a well-corroborated informant's tip, is not nullified by subsequent, legally unnecessary police tactics like a pretextual traffic stop. The ruling signals to lower courts that the foundational basis for probable cause is paramount, and subsequent police actions, even if 'unnecessarily complicated,' will not invalidate a search that was already justified. For future cases, this precedent allows courts to uphold searches based on solid, pre-existing probable cause, even if the methods used to execute the stop are questionable.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. White