United States v. Walter Glenn
931 F.3d 424
| 5th Cir. | 2019Background
- In Sept. 2014 Glenn (driver), Walker, and James were stopped on I‑10 in a rental car by Sgt. Dawsey for an obscured/tinted license‑plate cover; Dawsey saw screwdrivers in the door.
- Dawsey questioned occupants, returned to his cruiser and called for assistance; ~6½ minutes elapsed before he resumed questioning. Glenn said Walker rented the car and consented to a vehicle search. Officers found blank IDs, blank checks, holographic overlays, a printer, a laptop/thumb drive, envelopes with names/SSNs, and $95,000.
- Investigation linked the items to a multi‑state counterfeit check scheme (Walmart attempts across 20 states totaling over $2M). Glenn was charged with conspiracy, access device fraud, and aggravated identity theft; convicted by a jury and sentenced to 120 months.
- Glenn moved to suppress; district court denied his motions (finding consent voluntary and stop extension supported by reasonable suspicion). Walker’s separate suppression appeal resulted in partial suppression and dismissal of his charges on appeal. Glenn’s second suppression motion was denied for items found in the car; James obtained suppression for items in his personal bag and pled guilty.
- On appeal Glenn challenged suppression rulings and sentencing enhancements (loss amount, leadership role, obstruction). The Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Glenn's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge search of rental car | Glenn: Byrd supports his reasonable expectation of privacy despite not being renter | Govt: Precedent may deny standing for unauthorized rental drivers; court need not decide standing here | Court declined to resolve standing, reached merits and affirmed suppression denial |
| Lawfulness of extending traffic stop (reasonable suspicion) | Glenn: Dawsey unlawfully prolonged detention so consent was tainted | Govt: Officer developed reasonable suspicion from totality (rental car on I‑10, tinted plate cover, screwdrivers, odd itinerary, inconsistencies) | Court: Extension justified; reasonable suspicion existed to prolong stop |
| Voluntariness of consent to search | Glenn: Consent was not an independent act of free will after an unreasonable detention | Govt: Consent was voluntary under Jenson factors (no coercive procedures; cooperation; awareness; intelligence) | Court: No clear error in finding consent voluntary; search evidence admissible |
| Sentencing enhancements (loss amount, leadership, obstruction) | Glenn: Loss should be limited to ~$95k–150k; challenges leadership and obstruction findings | Govt: Loss attributable to conspiracy conduct reasonably foreseeable; facts support leader role and obstruction by false statements/non‑reporting of travel | Court: District court’s factual findings plausible; affirmed 16‑level loss increase, leadership +4, and obstruction +2 enhancements |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rounds, 749 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for suppression; consent voluntariness burden)
- United States v. Jenson, 462 F.3d 399 (5th Cir. 2006) (six‑factor voluntariness test for consent to search)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (officer may only extend traffic stop for time reasonably necessary to complete stop tasks)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (reasonable‑suspicion analysis uses totality of circumstances and objective officer perspective)
- United States v. Simpson, 741 F.3d 539 (5th Cir. 2014) (loss calculation and evidentiary standard at sentencing)
- Byrd v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1518 (2018) (rental‑vehicle driver privacy expectations; discussed but court did not resolve standing here)