United States v. Stephen Digiovanni
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15286
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Digiovanni was stopped on I-95 for following too closely; stop occurred around 11:53 a.m. and Digiovanni exited the car for a warning ticket.
- Officer Conner's observations (shirts, hygiene bag, clean interior) were used to infer possible drug trafficking as the stop progressed.
- Digiovanni's rental car originated from Florida and was to be dropped in Boston, with an unusual one-way rental; Digiovanni traveled using the Auto Train.
- Officer Conner questioned Digiovanni about travel plans and history, then shifted to drug-related questioning about drugs in the car.
- Written consent to search was obtained after a period of questioning and preliminary verbal consent; 34,091 oxycodone pills and $1,450 were seized; Digiovanni moved to suppress the evidence and statements.
- District court suppressed the evidence, finding the stop exceeded its lawful duration and the written consent was involuntary; the government appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop's duration violated Terry's duration component | Digiovanni argues prolonged stop beyond routine inquiry. | Government contends stop remained within reasonable duration. | Unreasonable duration; suppression affirmed. |
| Whether unrelated questioning extended the stop beyond its purpose | Digiovanni contends questioning about drugs extended stop. | Government argues minimal delay or de minimis effect. | Unrelated questioning prolonged the stop beyond the necessary scope. |
| Whether Digiovanni's written consent was voluntary and purged the taint | Consent may have been involuntary due to prior seizure. | Consent valid if voluntary and given by authority. | Consent involuntary; suppression upheld (attenuation not reached). |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (motivation for stop irrelevant to reasonable stop standard)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S. Ct. 781 (S. Ct. 2009) (traffic stops and scope of routine tasks; unrelated questions allowed if not extending stop)
- Mason, 628 F.3d 123 (4th Cir. 2010) (unrelated questioning de minimis when stop is diligently pursued)
- Foreman, 369 F.3d 776 (4th Cir. 2004) (reasonable suspicion and scope of stop; reliance on ordinary factors)
- Mena v. United States, 544 U.S. 93 (U.S. 2005) (unrelated questioning during detention does not violate scope if not extending detention)
- Johnson v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 781 (S. Ct. 2009) (unrelated questioning did not extend stop; permissible during routine traffic stop)
- Peralez, 526 F.3d 1115 (8th Cir. 2008) (blended purposes of stop; extended detention when unrelated questioning dominates)
- Brugal, 209 F.3d 353 (4th Cir. 2000) (unusual travel coupled with other indicators can support suspicion)
- Foster, 634 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2011) (government cannot rely on any innocent fact as a signal of suspicion without articulating why)