United States v. Compton
830 F.3d 55
2d Cir.2016Background
- Border Patrol set up an immigration checkpoint on State Route 11 near the U.S.–Canada border in Chateaugay, NY. A vegetable stand sat about .5 miles west of the checkpoint at the crest of a hill.
- At ~8:00 a.m. Compton (front passenger) and his brother (driver) drove eastbound; their SUV slowed abruptly at the hill crest and turned into the unstaffed vegetable stand.
- A motorist reported to agents at the checkpoint that the SUV had passed her and then immediately slowed; Agent Gottschall observed the same maneuver from a parked Border Patrol vehicle.
- Gottschall parked behind the SUV, saw the brothers walking away each holding peppers, ordered them back to the vehicle, and while walking past noticed a blanket in the rear that appeared to be concealing something.
- Gottschall requested a canine; the dog alerted to duffel bags after a brief sniff. Agents found ~145 pounds of marijuana; the district court denied Compton’s motion to suppress and this decision was appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Compton's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agents had reasonable suspicion to detain at the vegetable stand | Gottschall lacked reasonable suspicion; the stop was unjustified | Combination of checkpoint avoidance, proximity to border, and suspicious concealment provided reasonable suspicion | Affirmed: reasonable suspicion justified a Terry stop |
| Whether the initial consensual encounter became a stop earlier than when ordered into the SUV | The stop began when Gottschall pulled up behind the SUV, making detention immediate | Encounter remained consensual until agents ordered the brothers back to the vehicle | Affirmed: stop began when agents ordered them back into the SUV |
| Whether the detention was unreasonably extended by conducting a canine sniff | Handcuffing and holding in patrol cars converted the stop into an arrest lacking probable cause, requiring suppression | Canine sniff was prompted by enhanced suspicion from visible blanket; dog arrived quickly and sniff lasted ~5 minutes; drugs would have been discovered without the handcuffing | Affirmed: extension to conduct a canine sniff was reasonable in duration; physical evidence admissible |
| Whether evidence should be suppressed as fruit of an illegal arrest | Agents’ actions after reasonable stop converted to arrest without probable cause; suppression required | Even assuming an unlawful arrest, the drugs would have been inevitably discovered by canine sniff and thus need not be suppressed | Affirmed: physical evidence not suppressed on inevitable-discovery/independent-source reasoning |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Terry stop standard for brief investigatory detention)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (de novo review of reasonable suspicion legal conclusion)
- United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (permissible to consider proximity to the border)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (nervous or evasive behavior can support reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (no rigid time limit on Terry stops; must be reasonable)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (totality-of-circumstances analysis for reasonable suspicion)
- Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (reliability of contemporaneous eyewitness reports)
- United States v. Bailey, 743 F.3d 322 (Second Circuit guidance on reasonable suspicion and stop extensions)
- United States v. Padilla, 548 F.3d 179 (review standard for factual findings underlying reasonable suspicion)