United States v. Adam Chartier
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22323
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- At ~11:00 p.m., Officer Naaktgeboren stopped a Mercury Grand Marquis after a license-plate check showed the registered owner (male) lacked a valid driver’s license; visibility and road conditions prevented confirming the driver’s identity visually.
- Officer approached and found a woman driving (Aubree Sivola) and Adam Chartier as passenger; officer observed muriatic acid, a Walmart bag, and airline tubing in the car—items the officer (a DEA-trained clandestine lab technician) associated with meth manufacture.
- Dispatch advised Chartier had a prior assault-with-a-weapon incident. Officer requested assistance, asked occupants to exit, and Sivola gave inconsistent answers about purchases at Walmart.
- Officer performed a pat-down of Chartier (felt a bulge; found needles after Chartier removed a package), deployed a drug-detection dog (Reso) which alerted at the passenger-side door, searched the car (found no contraband), then searched Chartier and found meth, pseudoephedrine, and a pipe.
- Chartier moved to suppress evidence, entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of pseudoephedrine (21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2)) preserving appeal on suppression; district court denied suppression in part, dismissed the manufacture count, and sentenced Chartier.
Issues
| Issue | Chartier's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of initial traffic stop | Stop unlawful because registered owner was male while driver was clearly female; no basis to stop | Plate check showed registered owner lacked valid license; officer could not safely confirm driver identity given darkness/weather/road | Stop was lawful; officer had articulable, reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle |
| Expansion/duration of stop (dog sniff, questioning) | Officer unreasonably prolonged/expanded stop beyond traffic purpose | Officer observed acid and tubing (items associated with meth labs), Sivola’s inconsistent Walmart answer, and officer’s training gave reasonable suspicion to investigate further | Expansion and brief extension were reasonable given totality of circumstances; officer had particularized suspicion to investigate and deploy canine |
| Protective pat-down of Chartier | Pat-down was not supported by reasonable suspicion that Chartier was armed/dangerous | Officer knew Chartier had prior assault-with-weapon incident, saw bulge in pocket, and suspected drug-related activity—valid basis for protective search | Pat-down was reasonable under Terry: officer had articulable suspicion person may be armed and dangerous |
| Search of Chartier after canine alert / probable cause for arrest | Canine alert + negative vehicle search did not provide probable cause to search Chartier; search preceded arrest so found drugs cannot justify it | Canine alert to passenger-side door, lack of contraband in car, recent occupants, transferred odor, prior indicators (acid/tubing/needles) gave probable cause to believe Chartier had drugs on person | Probable cause existed to arrest Chartier based on totality of circumstances; search incident-to-arrest was lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (traffic stop reasonable when officer has articulable suspicion of unlicensed driving)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (officer may perform limited protective pat-down if reasonable suspicion person is armed and dangerous)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (scope of search incident to arrest; search may secure weapons and prevent destruction of evidence)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (totality-of-circumstances test; officers may rely on training and experience)
- Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050 (reliability of a well-trained drug-detection dog and relevance of transferred odors)
- United States v. Donnelly, 475 F.3d 946 (dog alert to vehicle can provide probable cause for presence of drugs)
- United States v. Peralez, 526 F.3d 1115 (traffic-stop may be extended if officer develops reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity)
- United States v. Stewart, 631 F.3d 453 (inconsistencies and contextual facts can heighten reasonable suspicion in drug investigations)