United States v. Ludwig
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8317
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Ludwig was stopped for speeding on I-80 in Wyoming by Trooper Chatfield after radar confirmed a speeding violation.
- Ludwig gave unusual travel plans and appeared highly nervous; he avoided eye contact and his car was registered to a third party.
- A drug-detection dog alerted on Ludwig's car; a concealed trunk compartment contained 11.3 pounds of ecstasy.
- The district court denied suppression and Ludwig pleaded guilty conditionally, preserving appeal on suppression, dismissal, and sentence.
- Video footage from Schulmeister’s patrol car was deleted; Ludwig moved to dismiss and suppress based on Trombetta preservation concerns.
- On appeal, the court addresses suppression, the video-destruction claim, and sentencing issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the stop supported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion? | Ludwig challenging stop’s basis. | Ludwig contends stop invalid due to unreliable radar and lack of probable cause. | Stop supported by probable cause via visual speed estimation. |
| Was Ludwig's extended detention justified by reasonable suspicion? | Ludwig argues detention beyond ticketing lacked reasonable suspicion. | Government relied on totality of circumstances; suspicious travel, odor masking, non-owner registration, nerves. | Detention supported by reasonable suspicion. |
| Did the drug dog alert give probable cause to search the car? | Dog's 58% accuracy undermines reliability; cuing alleged. | Certification and non-specific accuracy sufficient; dog alerted independently. | Dog alert provided probable cause to search; trunk opened lawfully. |
| Did the destruction of Schulmeister’s video require dismissal under Trombetta? | Deleting video violated duty to preserve exculpatory evidence; requires dismissal. | Defendant had other means to obtain evidence; not a Trombetta violation. | No Trombetta violation; dismissal not required. |
| Should Ludwig receive safety valve or minor-participant adjustment affecting sentence? | Ludwig seeks safety valve or minor-role reduction. | Ludwig’s disclosures were inconsistent; minor participant claim unfounded. | Safety valve and minor-participant adjustments denied; sentence affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (probable cause for traffic stop based on observed violation)
- United States v. Vercher, 358 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2004) (visual speed estimation can support stops for speeding)
- United States v. Bourassa, 411 F.2d 69 (10th Cir. 1969) (visual estimation credible evidence for stop)
- Arvizu v. United States, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality of the circumstances standard for reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Sanchez-Valderuten, 11 F.3d 985 (10th Cir. 1993) (factors supporting reasonable suspicion in drug cases)
- United States v. Turner, 928 F.2d 956 (10th Cir. 1991) (not registered to defendant; nervousness and suspicious travel support suspicion)
- United States v. Parada, 577 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 2009) (drug dog alert can create probable cause to search)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949) (probable cause is a practical, nontechnical concept)
- Trombetta v. California, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) (duty to preserve evidence depends on exculpatory value and availability of alternatives)