United States v. Mason, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24999

Background

Mason was stopped on I-20 for alleged illegal window tint; after issuing a warning, Swicord extended the stop based on suspicion of criminal activity.
A drug-detection dog later alerted outside the vehicle and then entered the car, leading to a search that uncovered about 10 kilograms of cocaine.
Mason was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and sentenced to life under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).
At sentencing, the government relied on three prior drug convictions (two state, one federal); Mason contended the state convictions were uncounseled and thus improper for enhancement.
The district court ruled the prior convictions were counseled and thus valid for enhancement, and Mason appealed both the suppression ruling and the sentence enhancement.
The Fourth Circuit majority affirmed the suppression ruling and the sentence enhancement; Judge Gregory dissented.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the stop extended without reasonable suspicion?	Mason: extension beyond completion of the stop lacked reasonable suspicion.	Mason: extension was improper without probable cause or independent suspicion.	Yes, the extension violated the Fourth Amendment; the stop was prolonged without sufficient suspicion.
Was the dog entry into the car supported by probable cause?	Mason: dog entering the car requires probable cause; entry was not justified.	Mason: dog exterior alerts plus entry provided probable cause to search.	Yes; exterior alerts established probable cause; the entry did not require separate warrant.
Did unrelated questioning during the stop measurably extend the detention?	Mason: questioning unrelated to the traffic stop extended the detention unconstitutionally.	Mason: brief, incidental questioning during a lawful stop is permissible.	No; the brief, incidental questions did not measurably extend the stop.
Were the two 1988 state drug felonies uncounseled and unusable for § 841(b)(1)(A) enhancement?	Mason: uncounseled status invalidates their use for enhancement.	Mason: state convictions were counseled; thus valid for enhancement.	No; the convictions were counseled or otherwise valid for enhancement; not uncounseled.
Must the government prove any prior convictions to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt for enhanced sentencing?	Mason: Sixth Amendment requires jury verdict beyond a reasonable doubt for priors.	Mason: Almendarez-Torres allows judge-finding of prior convictions for § 841 enhancement.	No; the prior-conviction findings need not be jury-found beyond a reasonable doubt.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2008) (reasonable-suspicion standard for extending a stop)
Foreman v. United States, 369 F.3d 776 (4th Cir. 2004) (totality-of-circumstances and common-sense approach to suspicion)
Wardlow v. United States, 528 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2000) (nervous, evasive behavior as a factor in suspicion)
Mena v. United States, 544 U.S. 93 (U.S. 2005) (brief questioning during a detention does not always violate Fourth Amendment)
Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S. Ct. 781 (U.S. 2009) (unrelated inquiries do not convert stop into arrest absent extension of stop)
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (U.S. 2005) (speedy detention principles; no unnecessary prolongation)
United States v. Jeffus, 22 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 1994) (tolerance for longer stops in certain circumstances)
United States v. Everett, 601 F.3d 484 (6th Cir. 2010) (fact-bound inquiry on whether delay was reasonable)
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (U.S. 1998) (prior convictions exception to jury-determined enhancements (contextual))