United States v. Mantel Mubdi
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16708
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Mantel Delance Mubdi pled guilty conditionally to drug and firearms offenses, preserving appeal of suppression ruling.
- Two Statesville police officers stopped Mubdi for speeding and following too closely after visually estimating his speed.
- During the stop, a drug-sniffing dog alerted to contraband, leading to a search that yielded crack cocaine, powder cocaine, and firearms.
- The district court denied Mubdi’s suppression motion, crediting the officers’ visual speed estimates and finding the stop reasonable.
- Mubdi argued the stop lacked probable cause, the stop was unlawfully prolonged for a canine sniff, and the search violated privacy; he also challenged the sentence enhancement based on judicial factfinding.
- On appeal the Fourth Circuit affirmed, upholding the stop, the canine sniff, and the sentencing calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for the stop | Mubdi contends lack of probable cause to stop. | Mubdi argues visual speed estimates were unreliable; follow-too-close claim misapplied. | Stop supported by probable cause (speeding and following too closely). |
| Prolongation for canine sniff | Stop extended beyond scope without reasonable suspicion. | Non-routine questioning and rental issues justified extension for canine sniffs. | Reasonable suspicion justified extension; canine sniff lawful. |
| Search based on canine alert and privacy | Unauthorized search due to privacy interests as rental-car driver. | No reasonable expectation of privacy and canine alert supported search. | Search permissible; privacy argument not dispositive. |
| Sentence enhancement and judicial factfinding | Five and Sixth Amendment rights violated by judicial factfinding on drug quantity. | Harris v. United States forecloses challenge to judicial factfinding for mandatory minimums. | Sentence upheld; Harris controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (pretextual stops allowed if probable cause exists to stop for a traffic violation)
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1964) (probable cause standard for crime likelihood)
- Branch v. United States, 537 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2008) (stop justified to detain for routine traffic violations)
- Sowards v. United States, 690 F.3d 583 (4th Cir. 2012) (visual speed estimates require corroboration in slight exceedance cases)
- Foreman v. United States, 369 F.3d 776 (4th Cir. 2004) (diligence in traffic stops and limits of investigation)
- Royer v. United States, 460 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1983) (scope and duration of traffic stops in relation to investigation)
- Sokolow v. United States, 490 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1989) (reasonable suspicion assessment under totality of circumstances)
- Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (U.S. 2002) (enhanced sentences based on judicial factfinding conform to due process)