UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DARREN HILL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LLOYD DODWELL
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Duncan, Feb. 23, 2017,
Exclusionary Rule- Good Faith – The exclusionary rule does not prohibit conduct that was considered legal at the time, even if the rule later changed
Exclusionary Rule- Good Faith – The exclusionary rule does not prohibit conduct that was considered legal at the time, even if the rule later changed
Facts:
In 2012, a North Carolina deputy observed an SUV tailgating another vehicle and conducted a traffic stop. The driver admitted to the violation and accompanied the deputy back to his cruiser while the passenger remained in the SUV.
Over the course of the next 17 minutes, the deputy asked questions of both the driver and passenger while he was also working on the traffic stop. “Some of Deputy McMurray’s questions pertained to the stop and others ranged far afield, covering such topics as Dodwell’s travel plans and recent activities.”
The deputy issued a warning ticket to the driver along with his license, but then asked for consent to search. When that was refused, “Deputy McMurray then notified Dodwell that he was going to call for another deputy so he could run his drug-detection dog Kira around the SUV.”
The K9 alerted, and the driver and passenger were placed in the police cruiser while a search was conducted of the SUV. A bundle of $30,000 was located, but no CDS. The two were then released. Ten days later, the deputy reviewed his video of the incident and noticed that the passenger had placed a bag behind the driver’s seat of the cruiser. He investigated and found the bag, which contained a substantial amount of cocaine.
In 2015, the Supreme Court held that “a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.”
Prior to that decision, the law allowed officers to go “off-topic” as long as they “reasonably” pursued the traffic violation.
The defendant challenged the stop, saying that while the deputy’s questions may have been ok at the time of the stop, they were not legal under the new standard.
Held:
Because the stop was legal at the time it occurred, it was valid even though the law changed later.
Traffic Stops
Seizure- A routine traffic stop becomes an unreasonable seizure when law
enforcement goes beyond the stop’s scope or duration without justification.
Length- The Supreme Court has held that a seizure justified only by a traffic violation “become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission” of issuing a ticket for the violation.
Length- Without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, an officer may not prolong a traffic stop beyond what is necessary to investigate the traffic violation.
Allowed Activities – Beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, an officer’s mission during a traffic stop includes “ordinary inquiries” related to ensuring that vehicles on the road are
operated safely and responsibly.
Allowed Activities- These activities include: checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance.
Unrelated Investigations- The question is not whether unrelated investigations (such as a dog sniff) occur before or after the officer issues a ticket. The question is whether the investigation “prolongs”—i.e., adds time to— “the stop.”
Good Faith
Exclusionary Rule- The exclusionary rule is meant to deter police misconduct.
Good Faith- It would not deter police misconduct to suppress evidence that was legally seized at the time just because the courts changed their mind about the state of the law after the fact.
Good Faith- A police officer that takes action based on reasonable reliance on court decisions is protected even if the courts later change their mind.