United States v. Neff, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11327

Neff pled guilty to a single count of traveling in interstate commerce with intent to distribute cocaine under 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(1); the plea reserved his right to appeal the denial of suppression.
Trooper used a ruse drug-checkpoint setup with signs warning of a drug checkpoint ahead near a rural exit; Neff exited and was stopped without a traffic violation.
The stop followed a rural exit, Neff’s license plate from Shawnee County, and his brief driveway stop with a startled look; a patdown occurred and trunk search revealed seven kilograms of cocaine and $10,000.
District court denied suppression, crediting rural-exit and evasive-behavior factors as establishing reasonable suspicion for a brief investigatory stop.
On appeal, Neff argues the stop lacked reasonable suspicion; the panel reverses, holds the stop unconstitutional, and remands with instructions to vacate the conviction.
This disposition hinges on whether the totality of circumstances justifies a Terry stop given a ruse checkpoint context.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there reasonable suspicion to stop Neff?	Neff contends the stop rested on a hunch, not articulable suspicion.	Government argues totality of circumstances supported reasonable suspicion.	No; stop unconstitutional; suppression required.
May a driver’s exit after ruse checkpoint signs contribute to reasonable suspicion?	Neff’s exit alone is insufficient to justify a stop.	The exit can be a persuasive factor among others.	Exit alone not enough; must have additional suspicious circumstances.
Did the district court give excessive weight to certain factors (rural exit, evasive conduct) in finding reasonable suspicion?	Facts were inconsistent with evasion and ordinary travel.	Factors collectively supported suspicion.	Facts did not amount to a particularized and objective basis for suspecting wrongdoing.

United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (reasonable suspicion may be based on totality of circumstances)
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality of circumstances for reasonable suspicion)
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000) (drug checkpoints unconstitutional when primary purpose is crime interdiction)
United States v. Carpenter, 462 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2006) (ruse checkpoints; exit after signs can be a factor but not sole basis)
United States v. Prokupek, 632 F.3d 460 (8th Cir. 2011) (ruse checkpoints; traffic stop not justified without observed violation or other basis)
United States v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (unprovoked flight as a factor in reasonable suspicion; context matters)
United States v. Klinginsmith, 25 F.3d 1507 (10th Cir. 1994) (recognizes consideration of suspicious exit as factor in suspicion)