United States v. Timothy Stringer
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 157
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Trooper Hilburn stopped Timothy Stringer for missing license plates and inoperable taillights after observing him leave a residence known for drug activity; two female passengers were minors (G.R., 15; A.K., 17).
- After running checks, Hilburn detained the vehicle pending a drug dog because he suspected the passengers were under the influence; Stringer refused a vehicle search but consented to inspection of an item from his pocket (a contact-lens case).
- The contact-lens case tested positive for methamphetamine; Stringer was arrested, and a drug dog alerted to the vehicle, after which officers searched the car and found nude/sexual images of G.R. and A.K. on multiple devices (G.R.’s Samsung phone, Stringer’s Motorola phone, and an Olympus camera).
- A grand jury charged Stringer with multiple offenses; he entered a conditional guilty plea to production of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), reserving appeal rights on suppression and an evidentiary ruling.
- Stringer moved to suppress evidence as the stop and subsequent searches allegedly exceeded the permissible scope and duration; he also sought to introduce evidence that G.R. had been emancipated (married at 14) to contest her status as a “minor.”
- The district court denied suppression (finding reasonable suspicion and probable cause) and excluded emancipation evidence; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Stringer’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether continued detention after routine traffic stop violated Fourth Amendment | Continued detention was prolonged after paperwork returned and mission completed; seizure became unlawful | Trooper had reasonable suspicion of narcotics activity (residence known for drugs; dilated pupils; meth evidence) justifying continued detention | Affirmed: detention reasonable; officers had reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop |
| Whether warrantless searches of vehicle and containers (including phones/camera) were unlawful | Officers impermissibly searched electronic devices without a warrant; modern devices require warrants | Probable cause existed (field test positive; K-9 alert) and vehicle exception justified search of vehicle and containers; also some devices belonged to third party | Affirmed in part on standing: Stringer lacks standing to challenge search of G.R.’s Samsung phone; evidence from that phone alone was sufficient to sustain conviction, so appeal fails |
| Whether Stringer may challenge search of G.R.’s Samsung phone | Sought suppression of all device-based evidence, including Samsung phone | Stringer has no legitimate expectation of privacy in another’s phone; cannot assert third party Fourth Amendment rights | Affirmed: no standing to challenge search of G.R.’s phone; conviction sustained on that evidence |
| Whether evidence of G.R.’s emancipation/marriage was admissible to negate “minor” status under § 2251(a) | Emancipation meant G.R. was not a legal minor; thus § 2251(a) could not apply | Statutory definition of “minor” is any person under 18; emancipation does not create an exception; evidence would confuse jury | Affirmed: emancipation not a legal defense; district court properly excluded evidence under Rules 401/403 |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (officer may not prolong stop absent reasonable suspicion)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (reasonable suspicion assessed from commonsense inferences)
- Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (defendant cannot assert Fourth Amendment rights of third parties)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (standing requires legitimate expectation of privacy)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (automobile exception permits warrantless search of vehicle and containers when probable cause exists)
- United States v. Bloomfield, 40 F.3d 910 (en banc) (probable cause to search vehicle supported by positive field tests and canine alerts)
- United States v. Shafer, 608 F.3d 1056 (Eighth Circuit analysis of indicia supporting reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Long, 320 F.3d 795 (Eighth Circuit precedent on drug-detection indicia)