71 F.4th 12
1st Cir.2023Background
- On Jan. 6, 2019 Trooper John Darcy followed Damon Fagan on the Maine Turnpike (Darcy conceded he targets drivers he deems "thugs").
- Darcy stopped Fagan after observing (and his dashcam showing) a pass and a return to the right lane without an initial signal; Darcy testified the return "cut off" a tractor-trailer and was "very close." Video was ambiguous on exact distance and the truck showed no evasive reaction.
- At the stop Darcy found a knife, learned Fagan’s license was suspended and that he was on bail subject to a search condition; after dog sniffs, repeated questioning and a body search Fagan produced 37 grams of heroin hidden on his person.
- District court denied Fagan’s motion to suppress; after new audio surfaced showing Darcy’s racialized comments the court reopened the hearing, again found Darcy credible, and reaffirmed denial of suppression.
- Fagan entered a conditional guilty plea reserving the suppression issue; the First Circuit affirmed the denial of suppression and rejected other challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Fagan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was the traffic stop supported by reasonable suspicion of an unsafe lane change? | Darcy observed an abrupt, unsignaled lane return that cut off a truck; a reasonable officer could suspect an unsafe lane change. | Video and testimony are inconclusive on proximity and speed; no objective basis for suspicion. | Affirmed — district court credibility finding sustained; viewed facts in light most favorable to court, reasonable suspicion existed. |
| 2. Does evidence of Darcy's racial bias require suppression or negate his credibility? | Racial bias does not automatically trigger exclusion; bias does not negate the independent facts that supported the stop. | Bias undercuts Darcy's credibility; his testimony should be discounted. | Affirmed — bias acknowledged but court reasonably credited Darcy's description; suppression not warranted. |
| 3. Is the heroin admissible under the inevitable-discovery doctrine despite alleged unlawful detention/questioning? | Officers would have lawfully arrested Fagan based on license, bail violations, and criminal history, and a jail search would have revealed the drugs. | Prolonged detention and coercive questioning produced the evidence unlawfully. | Affirmed — district court found lawful means would have inevitably discovered the drugs; government carried its burden. |
| 4. Was the denial of discovery into Darcy's other stops erroneous? | Discovery ruling was not preserved in the conditional plea; challenge waived. | Discovery was necessary to show a pattern of racial profiling to impeach Darcy. | Affirmed — claim waived by plea because the discovery order was not specified for appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (a traffic stop effects a seizure under the Fourth Amendment)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (reasonable suspicion of a traffic offense justifies a stop; officer's reasonable mistake of law can suffice)
- Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (reasonable suspicion requires less than probable cause)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (pretextual or racially motivated stops do not automatically require suppression if independent justification exists)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (appellate review gives due weight to inferences of on-scene officers but reviews reasonableness de novo)
- Arizona v. United States citations were not used; included related precedent: Arvizu v. United States, 534 U.S. 266 (reasonable-suspicion analysis allows common-sense inferences)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (scope and duration limits of traffic stops; ordinary inquiries permitted)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (ordinary traffic-stop inquiries may proceed without implicating Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Almeida, 434 F.3d 25 (1st Cir.) (outlines three-part inevitable-discovery test)
- United States v. Tiru-Plaza, 766 F.3d 111 (1st Cir.) (objective-standard review and deference to district court fact-findings)
- United States v. Sierra-Ayala, 39 F.4th 1 (1st Cir.) (appellate deference to district court credibility determinations)