United States v. Stepp
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9883
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Stepp and co-defendant Boswell were stopped on I-24 in Rutherford County, TN for a license-plate mismatch and a nonworking brake light, with stop beginning at 8:53 a.m.
- Both men provided licenses and registration; neither produced a rental agreement; Stepp clutched a boost phone; the stop was aided by a back-up officer and a canine unit was later summoned
- Deputy Lawson learned Stepp had a prior narcotics felony and Boswell had DEA-initiated cocaine-trafficking investigations; these histories were considered in evaluating suspicions
- Lawson sought to contact the rental-car company and Boswell's DEA contact while the stop continued; a dog sniff was conducted after a prolonged questioning phase; the dog alerted to drugs, leading to a search that uncovered two kilograms of cocaine
- Boswell and Stepp were read Miranda rights and arrested after the drug discovery; Stepp gave a written statement; defense sought to introduce an expert on dog-sniff testing; district court restricted expert testimony and later excluded the expert
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was unreasonably prolonged without independent suspicion | Stepp argues prolongation exceeded scope of initial stop | Stepp argues extraneous questioning created unreasonable extension | Yes, but independent suspicion supported prolongation; no Fourth Amendment error |
| Whether excluding the defense expert at suppression was error | Stepp contends district court abused discretion | Government argues Rule 702/Daubert not required at suppression hearings | Abuse occurred; harmless error given record and alternative credible evidence |
| Whether statements from Stepp were fruits of an unlawful search | Stepp seeks suppression under Fourth Amendment | No unlawful search; statements not tainted | No Fourth Amendment violation; statements admissible |
| Whether the special supervised-release condition prohibiting boxing employment was reasonable | Condition necessary to prevent recidivism | No relation between boxing and offense; overbroad | Condition abused; remand for resentencing without boxing-employment restriction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bell, 555 F.3d 535 (6th Cir. 2009) (reasonable-suspicion framework for traffic stops; extraneous questioning durations)
- United States v. Everett, 601 F.3d 484 (6th Cir. 2010) (limits on duration of traffic-stop extensions; de minimis prolongations allowed)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (dog sniffs during lawful stops do not require separate suspicion unless stop is unlawfully prolonged)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (passengers are seized during traffic stops; their rights attach to stop)
- Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (hearsay and evidence rules relaxed at suppression hearings; admissibility guidance)