860 F. Supp. 2d 459
W.D. Mich.2012Background
- Indictment 1/24/2012 charges Defendant with possession with intent to distribute heroin (1 kg+) and cocaine (500 g+).
- Four kilo bricks of heroin and cocaine found in a trap under Defendant's vehicle after a traffic stop on I-94 in Michigan.
- Trooper Gillespie stopped Defendant for allegedly following too closely; stop recorded on dashboard camera.
- Defendant moved to suppress the drug evidence; motion granted based on Fourth Amendment violations.
- Court analyzes stop, detention, and consent; suppression of all drug evidence granted on constitutional grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the traffic stop lawful based on probable cause for following too closely? | Government argues probable cause existed at stop. | Defendant argues stop was not supported by probable cause and stale. | No; stop invalid for lack of timely probable cause; suppression warranted. |
| Was the detention beyond the stop reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? | Government contends some questioning permissible to ensure safety. | Defendant contends extended detention extended the stop unreasonably. | No; detention deemed unreasonable and unlawful. |
| Was the consent to search valid and voluntary? | Government claims Defendant expressly consented to search. | Defendant's responses were not unequivocal, specific, or voluntary. | No; consent invalid, making the search unlawful and fruits suppressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Copeland v. United States, 321 F.3d 582 (6th Cir. 2003) (stop and seizure standards; probable cause in traffic stops)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (traffic-stop probable-cause standard; objective factors govern legality)
- United States v. Blair, 524 F.3d 740 (6th Cir. 2008) (probable cause; timing and staleness in traffic stops)
- United States v. Everett, 601 F.3d 484 (6th Cir. 2010) (reasonable-diligence standard for questioning during stops)
- Worley v. United States, 193 F.3d 380 (6th Cir. 1999) (consent to search; factors for validity in totality of circumstances)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (consent must be unequivocal, specific, intelligent; voluntary)