United States v. Kenneth Cochrane
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25980
6th Cir.2012Background
- Four VGRIP officers stopped Cochrane’s SUV for a suspected stop-sign violation; a drug-dog alert followed by a search yielded no evidence and he received a warning.
- About five weeks later (Mar. 15, 2011), same officers observed no front license plate, followed Cochrane to a apartment complex, and initiated a traffic stop by turning on lights as he approached his vehicle.
- Officer Mercer testified about a brief exchange near the rear of the SUV; Defendant allegedly said, “go ahead,” signaling consent to search, though Defendant disputes this statement.
- A search of the vehicle after consent disclosed the end of a silver gun barrel; Cochrane was arrested, Mirandized, and placed in a cruiser.
- On Apr. 6, 2011, Cochrane was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm; he had a prior bank-fraud conviction and was on supervised release at the time.
- At sentencing, the district court imposed 41 months for the firearms conviction and 12 months for the supervised-release violation, running consecutively, while defense counsel sought concurrent terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment: is the stop/search reasonable? | Cochrane argues the stop was unreasonably prolonged and the search lacked consent. | Cochrane contends the stop extended beyond reasonable scope and the search was coercive or nonconsensual. | Conviction affirmed; stop and search deemed reasonable and consent voluntary. |
| Voluntariness of consent to search | Government proves consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances. | Consent was not voluntary due to coercion, prior illegality, or acquiescence. | Consent found voluntary; no Fourth Amendment violation in the search. |
| Reasonableness of consecutive sentences | District court adequately exercised discretion; consecutive sentences supported by §3553(a) factors. | District court failed to articulate rationale for consecutive sentence and omitted applicable policy considerations. | Consecutive-sentence decision vacated and remanded for explanation. |
| Procedural/overall reasonableness of within-guidelines sentence | 41-month firearms and 12-month violation sentences within Guidelines are reasonable. | Challenges procedural aspects and potential misweighting of §3553(a) factors. | Sentence within Guidelines was procedurally and substantively reasonable; focus remains on the consecutive-sentence issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) (stop must be limited in scope and duration)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) (unrelated questioning may prolong a stop if curriculum minimal)
- Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005) (officer-safety questions during stops do not necessarily extend detention)
- United States v. Everett, 601 F.3d 484 (6th Cir. 2010) (fact-bound inquiry into duration and scope of stop)
- United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985) (diligence in investigation; duration must be reasonable)
- United States v. Worley, 193 F.3d 380 (6th Cir. 1999) (acquiescence vs. voluntary consent considerations)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (procedural considerations in sentencing)
- United States v. Johnson, 640 F.3d 195 (6th Cir. 2011) (consecutive sentences and policy statements guidance)
- Berry v. United States, 565 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2009) (reference to PSR and reliance on §3553(a) factors in sentencing)
- United States v. Inman, 666 F.3d 1001 (6th Cir. 2012) (requirement to articulate reasons for consecutive sentences)