United States v. Foster
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3939
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Foster was indicted for possession with intent to distribute cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)).
- Police discovered cocaine and drug paraphernalia on Foster during an investigative stop.
- Foster moved to suppress the evidence, contending the stop lacked reasonable suspicion.
- The district court denied suppression after finding the circumstances gave rise to suspicion.
- Foster entered a conditional guilty plea reserving appellate rights on suppression.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed, concluding the stop was not supported by a reasonable, articulable basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion | Government: combined factors created reasonable suspicion | Foster: factors were insufficient to justify the stop | Stop lacked reasonable suspicion; suppression affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996) (objective, totality-of-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- Arvizu v. United States, 534 U.S. 266 (U.S. 2002) (totality of circumstances standard for stop)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts)
- Sprinkle v. United States, 106 F.3d 617 (10th Cir. 1997) (prior record alone insufficient for suspicion; similar analogy to case)
- Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2000) (evading behavior as a factor in suspicion)
- United States v. Johnson, 599 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 2010) (recognizes experience and training, but not automatic justification)
- Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (U.S. 1976) (purpose of Fourth Amendment is to prevent hindsight from coloring evaluation)
- Sandoval, 29 F.3d 537 (10th Cir. 1994) (mere knowledge of prior involvement insufficient for suspicion)
- United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542 (4th Cir. 1998) (standard of review for suppression motions)