United States v. Brent Englehart
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1262
8th Cir.2016Background
- Officer Liebe stopped Englehart for following too closely on I-80, requested license/registration, and asked Englehart to sit in the patrol car while he prepared a written warning; that initial portion lasted about 12 minutes.
- After Liebe completed the warning, he handed Englehart his documents, said he was done, then asked follow-up questions and requested consent to search; Englehart stayed and answered further questions.
- Liebe said he would run a K-9 around the vehicle; Englehart expressed reluctance and discomfort; Liebe called for backup to conduct a dog sniff but never deployed the dog.
- Roughly 3.5–4.5 minutes after the stop was complete, and within minutes of Liebe announcing a dog sniff, Englehart admitted he had a small amount of marijuana in the vehicle.
- After that admission, Liebe searched the vehicle, found hash and $351,360 in a toolbox; Englehart was arrested and later indicted on drug and money-laundering related counts.
- The district court granted suppression, concluding the post-warning extension to seek a dog sniff was nonconsensual and unsupported by reasonable suspicion under Rodriguez; the government appealed and the Eighth Circuit reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Englehart's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-warning questioning/search request was consensual or converted to a seizure | He contends the encounter became nonconsensual once he resisted the search and thus any further detention required reasonable suspicion | Government says Englehart voluntarily remained and answered questions after being told he was free to go, so the encounter was at least partly consensual | Court: Some post-warning questioning was consensual; identifying that consensual interval was not clear error |
| Whether the stop was unconstitutionally extended absent reasonable suspicion (de minimis doctrine) | Extension to conduct a K-9 sniff was unlawful and Rodriguez requires suppression of evidence obtained after the unlawful detention | At the time of the stop, Eighth Circuit precedent allowed brief (de minimis) post-stop extensions; any extension here was only a few minutes and therefore permissible | Court: Under then-binding circuit law the short extension (3.5–4.5 minutes until admission) was de minimis and did not render the detention unreasonable |
| Whether Englehart’s admission gave probable cause to search the vehicle | Admission was elicited during an unlawful detention and thus statements and derivative evidence must be suppressed | Government contends the admission occurred during a permissible de minimis extension and provided probable cause to search the vehicle | Court: The admission provided probable cause; once Englehart admitted marijuana was present, Liebe lawfully searched the vehicle and could search areas that might conceal drugs |
| Voluntariness of the admission (was it induced by promises of leniency?) | Englehart argued the admission was elicited by Liebe's statements that he would not cite/arrest for small personal-use amounts, rendering confession involuntary | Government argued a single comment that officer was "not too concerned" did not overbear will or constitute a legally significant promise | Court: Single comment did not render the admission involuntary; admission was voluntary on these facts |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cowan, 674 F.3d 947 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Quintero-Felix v. United States, 714 F.3d 563 (8th Cir. 2013) (officer may complete routine checks and ask itinerary questions; distinguishing post-stop consensual encounters)
- United States v. Coleman, 700 F.3d 329 (8th Cir. 2012) (admission of drugs in vehicle supplies probable cause to search entire vehicle)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (probable cause to search vehicle justifies search of every part that may conceal the object)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (absent reasonable suspicion, extending a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff violates the Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Robinson, 455 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 2006) (circuit precedent permitting de minimis extensions under certain durations)