United States v. William Bost
606 F. App'x 821
6th Cir.2015Background
- Officer Lane lawfully stopped William Bost for illegal lane changes and asked him to exit the vehicle during the traffic stop.
- Officer Lane observed three cell phones in Bost’s car; while exiting, Bost put his hand between the center console and a child’s seat, prompting Lane to draw his firearm, deploy a taser, order Bost’s hands into view, handcuff him, and conduct a patdown (no weapons found).
- While handcuffed on the cruiser’s hood, Lane saw Bost chewing, reached into Bost’s mouth, and a struggle ensued during which Bost spit out gum; subsequently three bags of crack cocaine were located (one on Bost, one near the scuffle, one near the rear bumper).
- Bost moved to suppress the cocaine, arguing the evidence flowed from an unconstitutional search (specifically the oral search). The magistrate judge found the oral search unconstitutional but recommended denial of suppression on inevitable-discovery grounds; the district court adopted that recommendation.
- Bost pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the suppression denial; he was sentenced to 262 months. The Sixth Circuit reviews mixed questions of fact and law de novo/clear-error where appropriate and affirms the denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bost) | Defendant's Argument (Government/Officer Lane) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of ordering driver out of vehicle during traffic stop | Ordering out was pretextual and not justification for further intrusion | Officers may order occupants out during lawful traffic stops | Ordering Bost out was lawful (Mimms/Wilson) |
| Validity of patdown/handcuffing after Bost put hand out of view | Patdown/detention exceeded traffic-stop scope and lacked reasonable suspicion | Sudden movement reaching into console justified officer-safety frisk and detention | Patdown and handcuffing were reasonable based on officer safety concerns (Terry, Johnson) |
| Lawfulness of officer reaching into Bost’s mouth and scuffle | Oral search violated Fourth Amendment; evidence obtained thereby should be suppressed | Initial detention and patdown lawful; but oral intrusion was unconstitutional | Reaching into mouth violated the Fourth Amendment (district court correct) |
| Admissibility of cocaine under inevitable-discovery exception | Evidence discovered as fruit of unconstitutional search should be excluded | Bags of cocaine would have been inevitably discovered by lawful means (bag on ground near patdown) | Inevitable-discovery applies; suppression denied and conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (established stop-and-frisk reasonableness standard)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (Terry applies to traffic stops)
- Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (officer safety concerns in vehicle stops)
- Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (officer may order passengers out of vehicle)
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (ordering driver out of vehicle during stop)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (subjective officer motivation irrelevant to stop legality)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (standard of review for reasonable suspicion)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (inevitable-discovery exception to exclusionary rule)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (foundation for exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Townsend, 305 F.3d 537 (possession of multiple phones insufficient alone to justify detention)
- United States v. Blair, 524 F.3d 740 (nervousness alone insufficient to support suspicion of drug crime)
- United States v. Kennedy, 61 F.3d 494 (discussing inevitable-discovery principles)