United States v. Warren Green, IV
897 F.3d 173
| 3rd Cir. | 2018Background
- Pennsylvania State Trooper Volk, a drug interdiction officer, encountered Warren Green during three Turnpike stops over April 3–5, 2013; the final stop (Apr. 5) yielded ~20 lbs of heroin in Green’s trunk after a canine alert and warrant search.
- On Apr. 4 Volk had stopped Green, obtained consent to search, smelled raw marijuana from the trunk, found no contraband, and learned Green had prior drug/weapon arrests.
- On Apr. 5 Volk paced Green, concluded Green was speeding (79 mph in a 65 zone) and initiated a traffic stop; Volk gave a warning citation but delayed Green, sought backup/canine, and later conducted a dog sniff which alerted to the trunk.
- Green moved to suppress evidence, arguing the Apr. 5 stop was unlawfully initiated or unlawfully prolonged in violation of the Fourth Amendment; the district court denied suppression, Green pleaded guilty reserving appeal.
- The Third Circuit reviewed whether (1) the stop was justified by reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation; (2) the stop was measurably extended in violation of Rodriguez; and (3) Volk had reasonable suspicion to justify extending the stop to conduct a canine sniff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Green) | Defendant's Argument (Gov/Volk) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Apr. 5 stop lawfully initiated by a traffic violation? | Paces at 0.1–0.2 mile too far for reliable speed estimate; pacing unreliable. | Volk paced in compliance with statute, maintained constant interval, measured 79 mph. | Held: Stop lawful; reasonable suspicion of speeding existed. |
| Was the stop measurably extended in violation of Rodriguez? (timing of Rodriguez moment) | Volk’s phone call and non-traffic inquiries after initial contact diverted from traffic mission and extended the stop without reasonable suspicion. | Even if non-traffic actions occurred, they did not measurably prolong duties; safety/backup coordination plausible; in any event later facts supplied suspicion. | Held: Court assumed the earlier (defendant-favoring) Rodriguez moment for caution but found extension justified because reasonable suspicion existed at that assumed moment. |
| At the Rodriguez moment, did Volk have reasonable suspicion to investigate drug activity (justify canine sniff)? | Prior consensual clean search and innocuous explanations for travel negate reasonable suspicion. | Totality of circumstances (marijuana odor, inconsistent/misleading travel statements, prior arrests) gave particularized, objective basis for suspicion. | Held: Volk had reasonable suspicion based on combined factors; extension for canine sniff permissible. |
| May facts from prior stop (Apr. 4) be considered in assessing suspicion on Apr. 5? | Apr. 4 consent search found no contraband, so that prior encounter should not support suspicion for Apr. 5. | Totality-of-the-circumstances allows consideration of prior observations (odor, statements, records) and their weight. | Held: Prior-stop facts (odor, statements, record) properly considered; they contributed to reasonable suspicion despite prior clean search. |
Key Cases Cited
- Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (Fourth Amendment reasonable-suspicion standard for stops)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (dog sniffs impermissible if they measurably extend a traffic stop absent reasonable suspicion)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (dog sniff during lawful traffic stop not Fourth Amendment violation if not prolonging the stop)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (pretextual traffic stops permissible if supported by probable cause for traffic violation)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (totality-of-the-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (foundation for investigative stops and standard for reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (officers may draw on training/experience in assessing suspicion)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (totality-of-the-circumstances and rejection of divide-and-conquer analysis)
- United States v. Peters, 10 F.3d 1517 (Tenth Circuit decision on multiple stops and limits of reusing prior-stop facts)