United States v. Saulsberry
878 F.3d 946
10th Cir.2017Background
- At ~10:30 PM an Arby’s employee called police reporting someone smoking marijuana in a black/green Honda with Texas plates in the restaurant parking lot; dispatcher relayed the tip to Sgt. Eastwood.
- Eastwood arrived within two minutes, found a single vehicle matching the tip, approached, smelled burnt marijuana when the driver (Saulsberry) opened his door, and asked for identification.
- During the encounter Saulsberry repeatedly reached toward a bag on the passenger floorboard; Eastwood requested he keep his hands in his lap and called for backup.
- Saulsberry consented to a search for marijuana; officers found a marijuana cigarette in the center console and arrested him; Eastwood then opened the bag and observed a stack of cards.
- After examining the cards more closely, Eastwood discovered numerous Capital One cards without Saulsberry’s name and later searched the car for further evidence of credit‑card fraud; Saulsberry was indicted for possession of 15+ unauthorized access devices.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether police had reasonable suspicion to detain Saulsberry in the parking lot | The government: anonymous caller who identified as an Arby’s employee gave a contemporaneous, corroborated tip narrowing to one car; Eastwood’s corroboration supported detention | Saulsberry: anonymous tip insufficient; detention unlawful | Court: detention supported by reasonable suspicion (tip was from identifiable citizen, timely, corroborated) |
| Whether officers had probable cause to expand the search and inspect the credit cards in the bag | The government: the large number of cards (≈15) justified examining them (and other facts could support inference of fraud) | Saulsberry: opening and inspecting the bag/cards exceeded scope of marijuana search; officers lacked probable cause to treat cards as contraband | Court: no probable cause to examine the cards; suppression required (government did not rely on the seat “machine” or other facts sufficient to establish probable cause) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lopez, 849 F.3d 921 (10th Cir. 2017) (standard of review and caution about relying on nervous behavior)
- United States v. Jenkins, 175 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 1999) (appellate review may affirm if any reasonable view of evidence supports district court)
- United States v. McHugh, 639 F.3d 1250 (10th Cir. 2011) (reasonable‑suspicion standard for investigatory stops)
- United States v. Chavez, 660 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2011) (factors for assessing informant tips)
- United States v. Brown, 496 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2007) (presumption of veracity for identified citizen informants)
- Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000) (anonymous tips and credibility concerns)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (corroboration of anonymous tips can establish probable cause)
- United States v. Madrid, 713 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 2013) (corroboration can support a tip even when the reported criminal activity isn’t independently verified)
- United States v. Bradford, 423 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2005) (automobile exception and probable‑cause search scope)
- United States v. Chavez, 534 F.3d 1338 (10th Cir. 2008) (vehicle search scope and collective‑knowledge discussion)
- Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987) (limits on expanding an authorized intrusion to expose unrelated evidence)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (incriminating character must be immediately apparent for seizure)
- United States v. Carbajal-Iriarte, 586 F.3d 795 (10th Cir. 2009) (scope expansion of consensual vehicle searches requires probable cause)