39 F.4th 377
7th Cir.2022Background
- DEA surveilled a suspected drug house near Indianapolis; Detective John Maples (Brownsburg PD / United Drug Task Force) observed a white Audi leave the location.
- Maples stopped the Audi on Rockville Road for allegedly following too closely (he testified the Audi was going 40–45 mph and less than a car length behind another vehicle).
- During the stop Radford made furtive movements, reached for phones and his waistband; Maples conducted a pat-down and, when Radford’s jacket fell open, observed a vacuum-sealed bag in an inner pocket that he believed contained narcotics.
- The bag tested positive for fentanyl; a small revolver was later found in the driver-side door; officers also discovered an outstanding warrant for Radford (lifetime suspension-related).
- Radford moved to suppress, arguing the stop lacked probable cause, the frisk exceeded its scope and became an arrest without probable cause, and the package was not in plain view; the district court credited Maples (except on surprise at the stop) and denied suppression.
- On appeal the Seventh Circuit affirmed, reviewing factual findings for clear error and legal questions de novo, and reviewing forfeited claims for plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Radford) | Defendant's Argument (Government/Maples) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for the traffic stop (following too closely) | Radford denied speeding or following too closely; video lacks the infraction | Maples observed 40–45 mph and <1 car length; photos show clear sightline; video system explained | Stop upheld: court credited Maples; probable cause existed without applying two-second rule strictly |
| Credibility / methodology of district court finding | Court conflated historical facts with the mixed legal question and used wrong methodology | Court made proper historical findings (speed, distance, sightline, video operation) and credibility determinations | No error: appellate review for clear error appropriate; factual findings supported probable cause |
| Scope of frisk, handcuffing, and alleged conversion to arrest | Frisk continued past when weapon risk ended; handcuffing converted stop into arrest without probable cause | Frisk justified by furtive movements, reaching waistband, noncompliance; warrant later provided probable cause for arrest (inevitable discovery) | No plain error: frisk lawful up to discovery of package; even if error, outstanding warrant makes discovery inevitable |
| Plain-view seizure / incriminating nature of package | Package was not plainly visible or immediately incriminating; officer manipulated view | Jacket fell open during legitimate frisk; Maples’ training permitted immediate recognition of dealer-sized vacuum-sealed package | Court credited Maples; package was in plain view and recognizable as narcotics; affirmed (alternative inevitable-discovery rationale) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (distinguishing historical facts from mixed questions of law and fact for probable-cause/reasonable-suspicion review)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (probable cause for stop exists when officer reasonably believes a traffic violation occurred)
- United States v. Peters, 743 F.3d 1113 (7th Cir. 2014) (use of two-second rule is helpful but officer’s credible visual estimates may suffice)
- Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998) (officer may frisk occupants during traffic stop if reasonable suspicion they are armed)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (Terry frisk doctrine permits limited weapon searches for officer safety)
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (permitting certain safety measures during traffic stops)
- United States v. Muriel, 418 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2005) (two-second rule discussion in following-too-closely context)
- United States v. Brown, 188 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 1999) (nervous, evasive behavior can support reasonable suspicion of weapons)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error standard for forfeited claims)
- United States v. Edwards, 34 F.4th 570 (7th Cir. 2022) (discussing appellate consideration of alternative grounds and forfeiture)