United States v. Mark Fuehrer
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23326
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- In Dec 2014–Jan 2015 investigators, using a confidential informant and GPS tracking, suspected Fuehrer of obtaining methamphetamine from Martin Lawrence and tracked his vehicle(s).
- On Jan 11, 2015 Deputy Williams used stationary radar and stopped Fuehrer for driving 66 mph in a 65 mph zone; Fuehrer could not produce a license.
- While Williams completed paperwork, Deputy Kearney arrived with a trained narcotics dog; the dog performed an open-air sniff, alerted, and then officers completed the stop, gave a warning, and searched the vehicle, finding 26.09 grams of methamphetamine.
- Fuehrer moved to suppress, arguing the stop was a pretext and the dog sniff unlawfully prolonged the stop; the magistrate and district court denied suppression after finding probable cause for the speed stop and no unlawful prolongation.
- At sentencing the PSR designated Fuehrer a career offender based on two prior controlled-substance convictions (state conviction Dec 3, 1998; federal conviction for conduct Oct 21, 1998, sentenced Aug 20, 2001). Fuehrer argued the priors were related and should be treated as one.
- The district court applied the career-offender enhancement and sentenced Fuehrer to 188 months; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of traffic stop (pretext) | Stop was pretextual; radar error could negate probable cause | Deputy Williams had objective probable cause from radar showing 66 mph | Stop lawful; objective probable cause existed despite alleged subjective motives |
| Legality of dog sniff/detention length | Dog sniff unlawfully prolonged traffic stop beyond mission | Dog sniff occurred during routine tasks and did not extend the stop | Dog sniff lawful; arrival and sniff occurred within time to complete stop |
| Application of Rodriguez (prolongation precedent) | Rodriguez controls; sniff after warning was unlawful | Rodriguez is distinguishable because here the sniff occurred before issuance of warning and tasks were ongoing | Rodriguez inapplicable; facts differ and stop was not prolonged |
| Career-offender classification | Two prior convictions are related/same course of conduct and should be counted once | Priors were charged separately and sentenced on different days, so count separately | Priors count separately under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2); career-offender designation valid |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cotton, 782 F.3d 392 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for suppression denials)
- United States v. Hogan, 539 F.3d 916 (8th Cir. 2008) (substantial-evidence standard for affirming suppression rulings)
- United States v. Annis, 446 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 2006) (review standards cited)
- United States v. Eldridge, 984 F.2d 943 (8th Cir. 1993) (pretextual traffic stops violate Fourth Amendment absent observed violation)
- United States v. Mendoza, 677 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2012) (any observed traffic violation supplies probable cause)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (officer’s subjective intent irrelevant when objective probable cause exists)
- United States v. Frasher, 632 F.3d 450 (8th Cir. 2011) (ulterior motive irrelevant to stop’s objective reasonableness)
- United States v. Coney, 456 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 2006) (radar-based speed observation supports probable cause)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (dog sniff during lawful traffic stop generally not a search and lawful if it does not prolong stop)
- United States v. Williams, 533 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing sentencing-guidelines criminal-history questions)