United States v. Corbine, 5:20-cr-50052

UNET investigated Melvin Corbine and Ricardo Barragan for meth distribution after CI-controlled buys and a July 2019 search of an Outlook Circle residence that yielded meth, cash, and a scale.
In Feb–Mar 2020 agents obtained tracking authority for Barragan’s and his wife’s vehicles; both vehicles were observed traveling together to Denver and returning to Rapid City.
On March 8, 2020 Detective Bloomenrader briefed SD Highway Patrol troopers to stop a silver Chevrolet Silverado suspected to be driven by Barragan.
Trooper Jackson stopped the Silverado after observing the rear plate’s issuing-state name was obscured by an aftermarket backup camera; as he approached he smelled raw marijuana.
A search of the vehicle produced ~523 grams of cocaine, marijuana, meth paraphernalia, and phones. Defendants moved to suppress on grounds the stop lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause and the officer’s statutory interpretation was objectively unreasonable.
Magistrate Judge Wollmann recommends denying the suppression motion: the stop was justified by an objectively reasonable mistake of law as to SDCL § 32-5-98 and the odor of marijuana provided probable cause to search the vehicle.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of traffic stop	Officer had lawful basis to stop based on statutory violation and investigation briefing	Stop invalid because SDCL § 32-5-98 only requires the numeric portion of a plate be visible; officer’s interpretation was an unreasonable mistake of law	Stop upheld: statute ambiguous and officer’s mistake was objectively reasonable under Heien; stop provided probable cause
Whether UNET intel supplied independent reasonable suspicion	Government implies ongoing investigation supported stop	Defendants argue investigatory intel was stale and non-particularized	Court found it unnecessary to decide; stop justified by objectively reasonable traffic-violation belief
Lawfulness of vehicle search	Search lawful if probable cause existed (odor of marijuana)	Defendants did not contest but argued suppression of evidence from stop could be warranted if stop unlawful	Search upheld: officer smelled raw marijuana, which provided probable cause to search entire vehicle
Application of SDCL § 32-5-98 to obscured issuing-state name	Govt: conspicuous display requirement can include issuing-state name; officer reasonably enforced statute	Defendants: statute requires only the numbers be conspicuous; hiding state name is not a violation	Court: statute not clear and unambiguous; considering drafting history, enforcement practice, and lack of contrary caselaw, officer’s interpretation was objectively reasonable

Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (traffic stop is a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes)
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (random stops implicate Fourth Amendment)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (framework for investigative detentions)
Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (objectively reasonable officer mistake of law can justify a stop)
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (automobile search exception to the warrant requirement)
United States v. Jones, 269 F.3d 919 (traffic stop governed by Terry principles)
United States v. Houston, 548 F.3d 1151 (traffic stop must be supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause)
United States v. Sallis, 507 F.3d 646 (probable cause for stop exists when officer observes a traffic violation)
United States v. Daniel, 809 F.3d 447 (probable cause definition for vehicle searches)
United States v. Englehart, 811 F.3d 1034 (scope of vehicle search when probable cause exists)
United States v. Farlee, 427 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (D.S.D. case recognizing probable cause when a plate was obscured)
United States v. Mayfield, [citation="678 F. App'x 437"] (odor of marijuana provides probable cause to search vehicle)