United States v. Sean Sowards
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13255
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Deputy Elliott stopped Sowards on I-77 for speeding after visually estimating 75 mph in a 70 mph zone.
- Deputy Elliott did not corroborate his speed estimate with radar, pacing, or VASCAR; radar was available but not used effectively.
- A dog sniff following the stop led to a search discovering about 10 kilograms of cocaine.
- Sowards moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the stop lacked probable cause under the Fourth Amendment.
- District court denied the motion, finding probable cause based on Elliott’s training and certification to estimate speeds.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding Elliott’s unaided visual estimate alone did not establish probable cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to stop based on unaided visual speed | Sowards argues visual estimate alone cannot establish probable cause. | Sowards contends visual speed estimates can supply probable cause under totality of circumstances. | Visual estimate alone insufficient; requires corroboration for slight excess. |
| Accuracy and training of officer's speed estimation | Elliott’s radar certification proves training to estimate speeds within margin of error. | District court correctly found training; the road-test performance supports reliability. | District court's finding that officer was trained to estimate speeds was clearly erroneous. |
| Corroboration rule for slight speeding | Officer’s expertise suffices to stop for slight speeding without corroboration. | Corroboration is required when speeding is slight to ensure reliability. | Majority adopts corroboration requirement for slight speeding; unaided estimate cannot alone justify stop. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ludwig, 641 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2011) (visual estimate can supply probable cause in appropriate circumstances)
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court 1964) (probable cause requires reasonably trustworthy information)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (Supreme Court 1996) (traffic stops must be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542 (4th Cir. 1998) (standard of review for suppression rulings; totality of the circumstances)
- Barberton v. Jenney, 126 Ohio St.3d 5, 929 N.E.2d 1047 (Ohio 2010) (state rule on visual estimation of speed and admissibility)
- Kimes v. State, 234 S.W.3d 584 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007) (discusses reliability of speed estimation; slight vs. significant variance)