United States v. Jesse Burcham
707 F. App'x 820
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- Burcham was stopped by Officer Rusty Jenkins for at least one traffic infraction; the stop led to a search and Burcham’s conviction for possession with intent to distribute 5 kg+ of cocaine.
- Jenkins questioned Burcham during the stop; additional reasonable suspicion allegedly developed from Burcham’s responses.
- Jenkins did not check driver’s license or registration before extending the encounter.
- Burcham consented to a search of his vehicle; officers discovered a hidden compartment during the search.
- Officers arrested Burcham after finding the hidden compartment and contraband; no drug canines were used according to the district court’s findings.
- On appeal Burcham argued (1) the stop/extension violated Rodriguez, (2) his consent was involuntary, (3) there was insufficient probable cause after discovering the compartment, and (4) officers’ recordkeeping was deficient and tantamount to Brady suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of traffic stop at inception | Stop was unlawful or unsupported | Stop was supported by at least one traffic infraction | Stop was objectively justified at inception (Lopez-Moreno) |
| Extension of stop under Rodriguez | Extension violated Rodriguez because unrelated investigative measures were added | Additional reasonable suspicion from Burcham’s answers justified extension; Rodriguez distinguishable | Extension was justified by additional reasonable suspicion; no Rodriguez error (Brigham) |
| Consent to search | Consent was involuntary (lack of knowledge of right to refuse) | Consent was voluntary; knowledge of right to refuse not required | Consent found voluntary; no suppression warranted (Robinette; Estrada; Cavitt) |
| Recordkeeping / Brady claim | Officers’ inadequate records suppressed exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady | Government cannot disclose evidence that does not exist; officers followed standard procedures | Plain-error review: no Brady violation; no constitutional duty to record communications (Brady; Youngblood; Edwards; Moore) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d 420 (5th Cir. 2005) (traffic-stop inception analysis)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (limits on extending traffic stops)
- United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500 (5th Cir. 2004) (officer’s traffic mission and permissible inquiries)
- Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996) (consent voluntariness factors; knowledge of right to refuse not prerequisite)
- United States v. Cavitt, 550 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2008) (permitting continued detention while searching if consent voluntary)
- United States v. Estrada, 459 F.3d 627 (5th Cir. 2006) (probable cause and consent analyses)
- United States v. Rounds, 749 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2014) (credibility / factual-findings review)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (limits on due-process obligation to preserve potentially useful evidence)
- United States v. Hebron, 684 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2012) (plain-error review of Brady-like claims raised on appeal)
- United States v. Edwards, 442 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 2006) (no Brady duty to disclose non-existent evidence)
- United States v. Moore, 452 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2006) (officer recordkeeping and standard procedures)
Decision: The district court’s judgment was AFFIRMED.