United States v. Darren Hill
849 F.3d 195
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- On May 2, 2012, a Henderson County deputy stopped an SUV for following too closely; Dodwell (driver) and Hill (passenger) were occupants.
- Deputy McMurray frisked Dodwell, escorted him to the patrol car, began writing a warning ticket and ran checks; Hill remained in the SUV.
- During about 17 minutes before the ticket was issued, McMurray asked both occupants questions; he observed inconsistent stories and nervous behavior.
- After issuing the ticket, McMurray asked to continue talking; Dodwell refused consent to search, then agreed to a sniff by a drug dog. A canine alerted to the passenger-side door; a search uncovered >$30,000 cash.
- Defendants were handcuffed during the search; later a bag containing cocaine was recovered. They were indicted for possession with intent to distribute, moved to suppress, lost in district court, pleaded guilty reserving appeal, and appealed the suppression denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-ticket questioning impermissibly extended the traffic stop | Defendants: Off-topic questions and delay before issuing ticket violated Fourth Amendment under later Rodriguez standard | Government: Any de minimis pre-ticket delay was lawful under 2012 Fourth Circuit precedent (diligent pursuit test) | Court: Pre-ticket activity did not violate the Fourth Amendment as applied under binding pre-Rodriguez precedent (Digiovanni et al.) |
| Whether post-ticket extension was unlawful | Defendants: Post-ticket dog sniff/continued detention impermissibly extended the stop | Government: Either waived on appeal or justified by consent/reasonable suspicion | Court: Defendants waived appellate challenge to post-ticket events by failing to object with specificity below; court did not reach merits |
| Whether exclusionary rule applies despite later changes in law (good-faith) | Defendants: Seek suppression under Rodriguez/Williams standards | Government: Good-faith reliance on then-binding appellate precedent precludes suppression | Held: Affirmed on narrow ground that conduct was lawful under controlling precedent at the time; good-faith principles supported outcome implicitly by relying on then-binding law |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (U.S. 2015) (traffic-stop extension rule)
- United States v. Williams, 808 F.3d 238 (4th Cir. 2015) (post-stop delay analysis applying Rodriguez)
- United States v. Digiovanni, 650 F.3d 498 (4th Cir. 2011) (pre-Rodriguez standard: officer must diligently pursue purposes of stop)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (U.S. 2011) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule for reliance on binding precedent)
- United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616 (4th Cir. 2007) (waiver for failure to object with specificity to magistrate recommendations)