United States v. Prokupek
632 F.3d 460
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Ruse checkpoint at a Neb. interstate exit led to a stop of Prokupek and McGlothlen after a dog alert and search revealed methamphetamine.
- Stop occurred at exit from interstate to county road; Trooper Estwick cited a traffic violation (failing to signal) as probable cause.
- Dashboard camera contradicted suppression-hearing testimony about signaling, suggesting inconsistent statements.
- District court credited the suppression-hearing testimony, then acknowledged the video discrepancy but found the stop supported by signaling failure.
- Court on remand found the credibility determination implausible and held the stop unconstitutional, tainting the subsequent search and seizure.
- Convictions were entered after conditional pleas; the Government conceded the stop could not be justified by exit-signaling observation; remand for proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop had probable cause. | Prokupek argues no probable cause. | Government contends signaling failure justified stop. | Stop lacked probable cause; suppress. |
| Credibility of Estwick's signaling testimony. | Prokupek shows contemporaneous statement contradicts hearing testimony. | Estwick's later testimony should be credible. | District finding is clearly erroneous; signaling contradiction undermines probable cause. |
| Suppression remedy for unlawful stop. | Evidence derived from the unlawful stop should be suppressed. | N/A or not supported by a different rationale. | Reverse denial of suppression; suppress and remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Donnelly, 475 F.3d 946 (8th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of ultimate probable-cause determination; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (credibility determinations can be overturned when inconsistent with objective evidence)
- United States v. Carpenter, 462 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2006) (reasonable suspicion for traffic stops cannot rest on exit signage alone; any traffic violation provides probable cause for stop)
- United States v. Bloomfield, 40 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 1994) (en banc; any traffic violation provides probable cause for stop even at ruse checkpoint)
- United States v. Wright, 512 F.3d 466 (8th Cir. 2008) (ruse checkpoint stops permissible if driver commits a traffic violation)