30 F. Supp. 3d 599
E.D. Ky.2014Background
- Flores was stopped on I-75 in Butts County, GA for driving slowly in the center lane and having tinted windows; officer observed Flores possess a bulge later identified as cash and Flores provided a fake Kentucky ID.
- Deputy Broce asked Flores to step out; Flores indicated he had money and a bulge in his pocket; Broce conducted a pat-down and briefly examined the bulge/money.
- A canine unit conducted a free-air scan of the vehicle while Broce finished a warning citation; the dog alerted to the driver-side front door.
- After the alert, Broce searched the car and found drug paraphernalia, opiate residue, and approximately $124,236 hidden in the doors.
- Flores and two passengers were transported to the sheriff’s office for further questioning; Flores moves to suppress all evidence obtained as a Fourth Amendment violation.
- The Court denied Flores’s motion to suppress, finding the stop supported by probable cause, proper officer safety searches were permissible, and the canine scan did not prolong the stop.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was justified by probable cause. | Flores asserts no probable cause for the stop. | Flores argues the stop was not supported by evidence of a traffic violation. | Yes; the stop was supported by probable cause (Flores’s slow speed). |
| Whether ordering Flores to exit and pat down violated the Fourth Amendment. | Flores contends exiting and pat-down were unlawful without articulable suspicion. | Broce could order exit and perform a limited pat-down for safety. | No; permissible under traffic-stop safety standards. |
| Whether the money removal was an unlawful search or tainted the subsequent canine scan. | Money removal was an unlawful search; tainted the subsequent canine scan. | Removal fell within Terry outer-clothing search; dog scan requires no articulable suspicion if stop is lawful. | No; money removal was permissible as a limited search, and the dog scan did not require articulable suspicion. |
| Whether the free-air canine scan prolonged the stop or violated Fourth Amendment. | Asserts prolongation due to canine scan, violating duration limits. | Dog sniff during a lawful stop generally permissible and did not extend the stop duration. | No; the stop duration remained within the limits of the mission. |
| Whether the cash would have been inevitably discovered notwithstanding suppression claim. | Cash would have been inevitably discovered during a probable-cause search at the sheriff's office; exclusionary rule does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chandler, 437 Fed.Appx. 420 (6th Cir.2011) (extension of stop analysis in Fourth Amendment contexts)
- United States v. Luqman, 522 F.3d 613 (6th Cir.2008) (probable cause standard for traffic stops)
- United States v. Garrido-Santana, 360 F.3d 565 (6th Cir.2004) (scope of investigative stop)
- United States v. Davis, 430 F.3d 345 (6th Cir.2005) (probable cause for stopping and scope of search)