United States v. Courtney Noble
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15279
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- DEA task force, based on a cooperating witness, surveilled a vehicle suspected in meth distribution; Detective Hart followed a Chevrolet Tahoe and asked uniformed Officer Adam Ray to stop it for traffic violations without identifying occupants.
- Officer Ray stopped the Tahoe for crossing lanes and excessive window tint; he observed passenger Courtney Noble was "extremely nervous," checked tint, and administered a field-sobriety test to driver Marcus Adkins (who passed).
- Adkins consented to a vehicle search; Ray ordered Noble out, told him he would be patted down for weapons, and frisked him. Ray felt and removed baggies he believed were drugs, then found additional meth, a pipe, pills, and a loaded handgun on Noble.
- Evidence from the stop led to a warrant search of a motel room where co-defendant Dena Brooks was found with scales and pills; all three were indicted on drug charges (Noble also charged under §924(c)).
- Defendants moved to suppress the evidence from the frisk; the district court denied the motion. All three entered conditional guilty pleas preserving the suppression issue and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop was impermissibly prolonged | Defendants: stop completed once tint/sobriety checked; further questioning and consent request unlawfully extended detention | Gov't: actions (tint check, sobriety test, questions) were within scope and brief | Court: Not prolonged; actions were related to stop and occurred within minutes |
| Whether Officer Ray had reasonable suspicion to frisk Noble | Noble: frisk lacked particularized, articulable facts showing Noble was armed/dangerous; nervousness and mere presence in suspected drug vehicle insufficient | Gov't: Noble’s extreme nervousness, vehicle’s suspected link to drug trafficking, and officer training justified frisk | Court: No reasonable suspicion—nervousness and mere presence in suspected vehicle, without specific link to Noble, were insufficient; frisk unlawful |
| Whether the patdown exceeded Terry (plain-feel/search vs frisk) | Defendants: frisk became a search (plain-feel issue) | Gov't: frisk and plain-feel seizure lawful | Court: did not reach plain-feel argument because reasonable-suspicion ruling dispositive |
| Whether Adkins and Brooks have standing to challenge Noble’s frisk | Adkins/Brooks: adopted Noble’s motion to suppress | Gov't: (did not timely argue lack of standing) | Court: Standing is forfeitable; government waived/forfeited standing objection, so Adkins and Brooks prevail on suppression as well |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes limited frisk for officer safety requires reasonable suspicion suspect is armed and dangerous)
- Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (presence in premises suspected of crime does not alone justify frisk of particular person)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (reasonable-suspicion is particularized, objective analysis)
- Brignoni-Ponce v. United States, 422 U.S. 873 (Terry principles apply to brief investigative stops)
- Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (limits searches incident to traffic citations; distinguishes scope of traffic stops)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (Fourth Amendment standing requires personal reasonable expectation of privacy)
- United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 582 (officer training/experience may weigh in reasonable-suspicion calculus when corroborated by other facts)
- United States v. Stepp, 680 F.3d 651 (reasonable-suspicion review is mixed question of law and fact)