United States v. Daytoviane McLemore
887 F.3d 861
8th Cir.2018Background
- Police patrolled a high-crime area; officers observed McLemore by a BMW previously linked to gang activity and to Rode.
- Officer Del Valle followed the BMW and saw a dealer advertising plate and a temporary paper registration card taped in the left rear window.
- From her cruiser Del Valle could not read the numbers/letters on the temporary card, radioed the other officers, then initiated an equipment stop; she later read the card when closer and did not check its validity.
- During the stop officers detected marijuana odor and discovered a firearm on McLemore; Rode and McLemore were indicted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3) and 924(a)(2).
- Magistrate judge recommended denying suppression relying on United States v. Givens; district court sustained defendants’ objections and granted suppression, concluding the stop lacked reasonable suspicion that the temporary tag violated Iowa law.
- Government appealed; the Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo whether Del Valle had reasonable suspicion (or an objectively reasonable mistake of law) to stop the vehicle.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to stop vehicle for an equipment/registration violation because she could not read a temporary paper tag from her cruiser | Del Valle: inability to read the temporary card gave reasonable suspicion to investigate whether registration was valid | Defendants: mere inability to read a lawful temporary tag from a following cruiser does not permit a stop absent particularized facts of invalidity | Held: No reasonable suspicion. Officer knew dealer plate and the paper was a DOT-form temporary card; government failed to show particularized reasons to suspect invalidity, distinguishing Givens and aligning with Wilson |
| Whether officers could rely on experience with fraudulent tags or visibility at night to justify the stop | Government: prior cases (e.g., Givens) permit stops where officers, based on experience, cannot read a tag and suspect fraud | Defendants: no testimony of prior problems or ability to read tags at night; no evidence the card was illegible or fraudulent | Held: Court found no testimony of prior experience or unreadability patterns here; those facts were absent so reasonable suspicion lacking |
| Whether officer made an objectively reasonable mistake of state law under Heien | Government: even if no suspicion, officer reasonably but mistakenly believed unreadability violated Iowa law | Defendants: statutory requirement does not mean readability from a following cruiser; state authority (Carmody) contradicts that view | Held: Mistake-of-law argument rejected as unreasonable and contrary to state precedent |
| Whether suppression of the firearm was warranted due to invalid stop | Defendants: evidence should be suppressed as fruit of unconstitutional stop | Government: stop was lawful so evidence admissible | Held: Suppression affirmed; stop violated Fourth Amendment and firearm excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Givens, 763 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2014) (upheld stop where officer could not read a paper tag at night and had experience with fraudulent tags)
- United States v. Sanchez, 572 F.3d 475 (8th Cir. 2009) (officer suspected paper in plate area was not a valid in-transit sticker and had reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Mendoza, 691 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2012) (officer identified particularized reasons to suspect a paper tag was fraudulent)
- United States v. Geelan, 509 F.2d 737 (8th Cir. 1974) (upheld stop when officer could not determine from following whether front-plate requirement was violated)
- United States v. Smart, 393 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2005) (similar holding on front-license-plate visibility during follow)
- United States v. Wilson, 205 F.3d 720 (4th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (rejected traffic stop where unreadable temporary tag in darkness did not supply suspicion; stopping every car with temporary tags impermissible)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (2014) (Supreme Court on reasonable-mistake-of-law doctrine in Fourth Amendment analysis)
- Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) (stopping a vehicle requires at least articulable and reasonable suspicion)