United States v. Stewart
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1985
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Deputies observed a red SUV in a Kwik Shop parking lot at night in a high-crime area; Stewart was in the driver’s seat.
- Deputies approached and questioned Stewart; Stewart appeared nervous and evasive, avoiding eye contact.
- Stewart reached into the center console and under his jacket multiple times, creating fear he might have a weapon.
- Stewart eventually produced his license; deputies requested back-up and a firearms/weapon check was run.
- Deputies, after a brief conference, escorted Stewart to a cruiser and conducted a protective search of the vehicle’s immediate area; crack cocaine and related items were found in the center console.
- A federal grand jury indicted Stewart for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, stemming from the vehicle search; Stewart moved to suppress the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the protective search of Stewart lawful under Terry/Long? | Government maintains search was reasonable given fear Stewart was armed. | Stewart argues lack of reasonable suspicion; consensual encounter and scope of search were improper. | Yes; search reasonable; suppression reversed. |
| Did totality of circumstances support reasonable suspicion at the moment of the protective search? | Totality of facts supported suspicion Stewart engaged in crime and was dangerous. | Reasons were insufficient individually or collectively to justify seizure. | Yes; totality supported reasonable suspicion. |
| Did Stewart’s inconsistent statements and furtive gestures contribute to reasonable suspicion? | Inconsistencies and furtive conduct bolster suspicion. | These factors alone are not determinative. | They supported, but were part of overall basis for suspicion. |
| Did nervous demeanor and failure to maintain eye contact support suspicion? | Nervousness contributed to the reasonableness of suspicion. | Nervous behavior alone is not enough. | Yes, as part of totality of circumstances. |
| Did the location/time and prior criminal history of Stewart affect the assessment? | High-crime area at night and Stewart’s history supported suspicion. | These facts require careful consideration but insufficient by themselves. | Yes; relevant to totality of circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (protective search for weapons with reasonable suspicion of danger)
- Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (U.S. 1983) (vehicle searches limited to areas where weapons may be placed or hidden)
- United States v. Davis, 202 F.3d 1060 (8th Cir. 2000) (reasonableness of suspicion in protective searches)
- United States v. Stachowiak, 521 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 2008) (reasonable suspicion, totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (U.S. 2002) (totality of circumstances; reasonable suspicion framework)
- United States v. Carpenter, 462 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2006) (consent-procedural and consensual encounter framing)
- United States v. Roggeman, 279 F.3d 573 (8th Cir. 2002) (totality of circumstances in reasonable suspicion analysis)