United States v. Rodriguez, No. 10-1874 (6th Cir. June 12, 2012) (unpublished).
Judges McKeague, White, and Barrett (S.D. Ohio).
Per curiam.
Cocaine and heroin case. Defendant appealed denial of motion to suppress. COA affirmed.
Michigan State Trooper stopped D on I-94. The trooper had been sitting in a marked police car and had been watching eastbound traffic. Trooper saw the D lean back in his seat "in an apparent attempt to hide behind the door post" when the D passed the trooper. Trooper began following the D. Stopped D for following a semi-truck too closely.
After stop, no ticket issued. Trooper told D that D was free to go, but then asked if he could ask the D something. About four minutes of questions. D ultimately consented to a search of the van and officers found kilos of heroin and cocaine.
B/c there was a traffic violation, the stop was legal. D did not provide testimony to contradict a finding that he was driving too closely behind the truck.
D not unlawfully detained after end of traffic stop b/c a reasonable person would have believed they were free to go after being told they were "good to go." Police may ask questions after a traffic stop has ended. No factors to indicate there was a further seizure here.
The D had been in the back of the police car, so more analysis was required. But still not a seizure, the COA found, b/c trooper had let D in the car to get out of the cold (D had been standing outside).
And, COA continued, even if there was a seizure, there was reasonable suspicion to support it. And here's where the bachelor party comes in.
Factors COA found established reasonable suspicion:
* D had leaned back in his seat when he passed the patrol car in an apparent attempt to hide his face behind the door post;
* D slowed down when he passed the patrol car;
* That stretch of I-94 (between Chicago and Detroit) is considered a "pipeline corridor" for drugs;
* The van smelled strongly of air fresheners (commonly used to mask drug odors);
* The van was not registered to D;
* D had stated that he was going to his cousin’s bachelor party, but he said he did not know the date of the wedding;
* D said the party was on a Thursday, "an unusual night for a bachelor party."
COA found that these factors, viewed in their totality, were sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion.
Judge White dissented.
She found that the D had been detained without reasonable suspicion after the traffic stop was completed. A reasonable person would not have felt free to leave. No reasonable suspicion to justify seizure. All the factors the majority cited were weak. "There is nothing inherently suspicious about a bachelor party being held on a Thursday."
Consent to search was tainted. Evidence should have been suppressed.
