Federal Motion To Suppress: Fifty-Six Minute Traffic Stop Not Unlawfully Prolonged—Drugs Not Suppressed in Federal Case

OVERVIEW

In United States v. Tykei Garner and United States v. Jerry Fruit, the Third Circuit considered whether a traffic stop violated the defendants’ Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures. Specifically, whether the Pennsylvania state trooper unlawfully prolonged traffic stop.

Issue: Was the traffic stop unlawful because it was “prolonged beyond the time reasonably require to complete the mission” Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005).

Short Answer: The trooper had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop based on information he obtained during the first few minutes of the traffic stop and before he engaged in any unrelated investigation.

FACTS

On July 5, 2016,  PA State Trooper Kent Ramirez stopped a car with a New York license plate for speeding on Interstate 81 near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Prior to the stop, the trooper ran the license plate and learned it was owned by Enterprise Rent-A-Car, but it lacked the typical bar code rental stickers. After the stop and upon approach, the car smelled of air freshener and each vent had an air freshener clipped to it. The trooper asked for a rental agreement from the driver—Jerry Fruit (“Fruit”). The agreement indicated that the car should have been returned twenty days before the traffic stop. The driver stated that the passenger, Tykei Garner (“Garner”), was his cousin. 

Before the trooper returned to the car to run the driver’s license plate and contact Enterprise regarding the rental, the trooper asked the driver questions about his employment, traffic tickets, and his criminal history. About six minutes after the stop, the trooper asked the passenger out to question him. The passenger said that the driver was dropping him off in Greencastle, PA, to visit his girlfriend but would return to New York the next day for a court hearing. 

About twelve minutes into the stop, the trooper returned to his car to check with Enterprise on the status of the rental agreement, and to verify the driving records and criminal histories. The information was entered manually into the cruiser, which could take twelve to fifteen minutes. The search revealed they had no warrants, and the driver was on supervised release for a federal crime. The driver and passenger also had extensive criminal records, including drugs and weapons crimes. Enterprise did extend the agreement beyond the expiration date. 

The trooper decided to asked to permission to search the car but waited until backup arrived—which was 37 minutes into the stop. The trooper asked for permission but the driver refused. The trooper stated that he had enough to believe there was criminal activity and that he would call a K-9 unit. The K-9 unit arrived seventeen minutes later—56 minutes into the stop. The trooper believed there was criminal activity based on (1) the conflicting stories, (2) their long criminal histories, and (3) that they were very nervous. The K-9 alerted to the back seat and trunk. The officers recovered 300 grams of cocaine and 261 grams of heroin in the trunk. The driver and the passenger were arrested.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 The driver and passenger were indicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine. They moved to suppress the evidence seized during the stop arguing stop was longer than necessary to issue the speeding ticket and lacked reasonable suspicion to engage in the investigation. The District Court denied the motion, ruling the trooper had “an escalating degree of reasonable suspicion” that justified the stop. 

HOLDING

The Third Circuit held that the trooper had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop based on information obtained in the first few minutes of the stop and before he engaged in any unrelated investigation. Therefore, the stop was never unlawfully extended. 

An officer may conduct unrelated investigations that do not lengthen a roadside detention. Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 333 (2009). If they extend the  stop, the seizure is unlawful unless otherwise supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause.  The lawful seizure ends when the “tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed.” Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354 (2015).  Pinpointing the moment when tasks tied to the traffic stop are completed or reasonably should have been complete is called the “Rodriguez moment.” The goal is to analyze whether the officer has reasonable suspicion or probable cause at that moment. 

The tasks tied to the mission of a traffic stop include checking the driver's license, determining if there are outstanding warrants, and inspecting the car's registration and proof of insurance. Some questions relating to the travel plans fall within the scope of the traffic stops as well as delays for safety reasons.

To extend the stop beyond tasks tied to the initial mission are completed or should have been completed, the officer must have objectively reasonable and articulable suspicion that illegal activity had occurred or was occurring. 

To determine if the officer has reasonable suspicion, the court considers the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture.” United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981). The standard requires “considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of evidence,” United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989), but requires more than a “hunch.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968).

In this case, the Rodriguez moment occurred when Trooper Ramirez asked questions about Fruit’s employment, family and criminal history. The questioning was not tied to the traffic stop’s mission—the speeding violation—because it was aimed at detecting criminal activity. 

There is no Fourth Amendment violation if Trooper Ramirez had reasonable suspicion when he began questioning Fruit. The Court held that there was reasonable suspicion based on the following factors:

• The car did not have the typical bar code stickers on the driver’s window or the rear windshields—so it is likely someone peeled them off in violation of the rental agreement;

• The car smelled a strong odor of air freshener and saw air fresheners clipped on every vent;

• Fruit was traveling along  a known drug trafficking corridor;

• The rental agreement expired two weeks earlier

• Fruit seemed extremely nervous throughout the stop. 

CONCULSION

This stop occurred along I-81 between New York City and Hagerstown. This is a known drug trafficking corridor where police patrol actively. A stop for a minor traffic infraction, such as speeding, can result in a long and thorough investigation if there are red flags.  In federal motion to suppress law, it is relatively easy to prolong stops if there are articulable signs of criminal activity. 

In this case, the red flags which established reasonable suspicion were: altering the car exterior of the car to hide that it is a rental; placing air fresheners inside the car to hide drug odors from police; inaccurate paperwork; and nervousness. These factors justified further investigation which revealed their criminal histories and further questioning which revealed inconsistencies in their stories. Finally, the K-9 unit was called and the dog revealed 300 grams of cocaine and 261 grams of heroin.