471 F. App'x 887
11th Cir.2012Background
- Mostowicz pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute drugs and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime, with a right to appeal the denial of suppression.
- A confidential informant provided details about Mostowicz’s_routine at a bar, his car, parking spot, and that he carried a gun.
- Officers followed up with the informant and observed Mostowicz arrive at the bar at the predicted time and place.
- After stopping him, officers and a canine unit conducted a dog sniff; the dog alerted near the center console where drugs and a gun were found.
- Mostowicz admitted the gun and drugs belonged to him after being read Miranda rights.
- Mostowicz challenged the suppression ruling on three grounds: lack of reasonable suspicion for an investigatory detention, detention rising to an arrest without probable cause, and the dog sniff of the car interior.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was reasonable suspicion for a stop | Mostowicz argues the stop lacked reasonable suspicion. | Government contends CS tip plus corroboration supported suspicion. | Reasonable suspicion existed; totality supported detention |
| Whether the detention became an arrest needing probable cause | Mostowicz contends the detention escalated to an arrest without probable cause. | Government argues the stop remained a brief, minimally intrusive detention. | Detention did not become an arrest; factors weighed in favor of legality |
| Whether Cody's entry into the car violated the Fourth Amendment | Mostowicz argues dog entry into car was unconstitutional search of interior. | Government asserts instinctive, unprompted dog actions do not constitute a search. | Dog’s instinctive acts did not violate the Fourth Amendment; no search violation |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nunez, 455 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2006) (reviewing district court findings de novo for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Perez, 443 F.3d 772 (11th Cir. 2006) (reasonable suspicion requires totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (Supreme Court 2002) (totality of the circumstances test for stops)
- Adams v. Williams, 92 S. Ct. 1921 (U.S. 1972) (informant credibility and observed facts support suspicion)
- United States v. Heard, 367 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2004) (face-to-face tip credibility can sustain reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Lee, 68 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 1995) (presently observable facts plus future conduct predictions)
- United States v. Hardy, 855 F.2d 753 (11th Cir. 1988) (dog sniff is minimally intrusive during detention)
- United States v. Acosta, 363 F.3d 1141 (11th Cir. 2004) (detention factors include purpose, diligence, scope, and duration)
- United States v. Vazquez, 555 F.3d 923 (10th Cir. 2009) (instinctive dog actions without police facilitation may be permissible)