United States v. Tykei Garner
961 F.3d 264
| 3rd Cir. | 2020Background
- PA State Trooper Kent Ramirez stopped a car for speeding on I-81; vehicle had New York plates and appeared to be a rental but lacked typical rental bar-code stickers.
- Ramirez smelled strong air freshener clipped to every vent and observed an apparently expired rental agreement (later confirmed as extended by Enterprise).
- Driver Jerry Fruit and passenger Tykei Garner gave travel and relationship explanations that conflicted or were implausible; Garner admitted a suspended license and downplayed his criminal history.
- Ramirez ran records and contacted Enterprise and the Pennsylvania Criminal Intelligence Center; he learned both men had extensive criminal histories and had been subjects of HIDTA investigations.
- Ramirez asked for consent to search; Fruit refused. Ramirez called for backup and a K-9; K-9 Zigi alerted on the passenger side, back seat, and trunk; troopers found ~300 g cocaine and ~261 g heroin in the trunk.
- Fruit pleaded guilty (preserving suppression appeal); Garner was convicted at trial. The district court denied suppression and admitted Garner’s 2007 drug-trafficking conviction under Rule 404(b); both convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop was unlawfully prolonged beyond mission (Rodriguez moment) | Fruit/Garner: Ramirez questioned them about criminal history and called for K-9, which measurably extended the stop without reasonable suspicion | Govt/Ramirez: initial observations (rental anomalies, heavy air freshener, nervousness, travel corridor, expired rental) gave reasonable suspicion to expand inquiry | Held: No unlawful extension — reasonable suspicion existed before off-mission questioning, so extension was lawful |
| Whether Ramirez lacked diligence (should have called K-9 earlier or not awaited backup) | Fruit: Waiting for backup and K-9 call sequence showed lack of diligence making the stop effectively an arrest requiring probable cause | Govt: Waiting for backup and running records/calls were safety- and record-related; delay was negligible and consistent with traffic-stop mission | Held: No lack of diligence; officer acted reasonably and delay was minimal and justified |
| Admissibility of Garner’s 2007 drug-trafficking conviction under Rule 404(b) | Garner: Prior conviction dissimilar and remote; prejudicial under Rule 403 | Govt: Prior conviction probative of knowledge/intent to traffic cocaine; admissible for non-propensity purpose with limiting instruction | Held: District court did not abuse discretion admitting 2007 conviction for knowledge/intent with limiting instruction |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Garner’s conspiracy conviction (Rule 29) | Garner: No direct communications or agreement shown; acquit required | Govt: Circumstantial evidence (travel pattern, removed rental barcode, air fresheners, false/inconsistent statements, narcotics value, Garner’s drug history) sufficed | Held: Evidence sufficient; denial of Rule 29 was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (officer may not extend a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff absent reasonable suspicion of unrelated criminal activity)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (officer may conduct unrelated investigations during a stop so long as they do not measurably extend the detention)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) (officer may conduct unrelated inquiries that do not lengthen detention; extensions require reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Clark, 902 F.3d 404 (3d Cir. 2018) (questioning beyond mission can unlawfully extend a stop; reasonable suspicion required for extension)
- United States v. Green, 897 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2018) (discusses timing of the Rodriguez moment and when off-mission acts mark completion of traffic-stop tasks)
- United States v. Davis, 726 F.3d 434 (3d Cir. 2013) (four-part test for admitting prior-act evidence under Rule 404(b))
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (standards protecting against undue prejudice when admitting prior-act evidence)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (reasonable suspicion assessed under the totality of the circumstances)