United States v. Alexis A. Brugal Henry M. Adames, M/o Reyna M. Dejesus, F/o

them, placed record, sent their confi- on that we conclude that the dis- agents dence repre- as their trict neither Re/Max’s court erred in finding perjury Akinkoye sentatives. used that trust to nor in applying erred the enhancement for obtain credit cards and execute a fraud justice. obstruction of Therefore, scheme. the district court’s de- As the district court’s determinations Akinkoye termination that posi- abused a order, appear to be in the judgment tion of trust not clearly erroneous. hereby AFFIRMED. D. The Justice Obstruction Of

Enhancement

Finally, Akinkoye disputes

district court’s enhancement for obstruc justice.

tion of The district court en Akinkoye’s

hanced sentence two levels Akinkoye because found that committed America, UNITED STATES of during a perjury pretrial hearing. While Plaintiff-Appellant, testifying under during hearing pur oath evidence, suppress suant his motion to Akinkoye uneategorically denied BRUGAL; ever hav Henry Alexis Adames, A. M. ing given any m/o; statement to the Reyna about DeJesus, f/o, M.

the credit card days scheme. Several ear Defendants-Appellees.

lier, Akinkoye confessed role No. 98-4255. gave scheme and detailed statement. Appeals, Court of enhancement obstruction Fourth Circuit. justice may properly perju be based on testimony. 3C1.1, § rious n. U.S.S.G. 29, Argued: Jan. 1999. We perjurious have held that July Decided: testimony given pretrial proceedings Rehearing Granted; En Banc Opinion may be in determining considered whether Sept. Vacated apply Gordon, the enhancement. See 61 F.3d at 270. applying the enhance

ment, the court specifically district must

identify the perjurious statements make a finding either as each element of “or

perjury encompasses ‘that all of the predicates

factual finding perju for a ” ry.’ Id. United (quoting States Dun

nigan, (1993)). case,

In the Akinkoye instant repeatedly

denied that he Inspector told ever Bernar-

do of his in the involvement scheme.

However, the Inspector detail recounted in

Akinkoye’s account of the events. judge expressly found Akin-

koye lied when he stated that he did not

make of the statements attributed to

him, and that issue of whether the

statements were lawfully obtained “was

the whole hearing.” J.A. at 540. Based Jr., Shealy, Miller Williams

ARGUED: Attorney, Charles- United States Assistant Carolina, Appellant. Ann ton, for South Walsh, Public Assistant De- Briks Federal Carolina; Charleston, Barry fender, South York; York, New Kenyon, New Francis Newman, Daugs, Tedder & Jared Sullivan Carolina, Newman, Royal, South Port Rene Josey, BRIEF: J. Appellees. ON Charleston, Attorney, South Carolina, Appellant. MURNAGHAN, WIDENER,

Before HAMILTON, Judges. Circuit Judge by published opinion. Affirmed majority wrote MURNAGHAN opinion, Judge WIDENER made visible to motorists safety flares joined. Judge HAMILTON wrote a lettering. reflective dissenting opinion. There actual “drug checkpoint” Rather, the interstate. according to

OPINION one of the troopers, employed SCHP the investigate ruse to traffic violations. MURNAGHAN, Judge: Circuit end, To that officers, two SCHP Sergeant Here we an appeal by govern- the (at Honeycutt whose direction the ment from suppression the district court’s placed) were Lawson, and Lynn Jackie (drugs) evidence found in the trunk of Larry Shoemaker of the Ridgeland the government defendants’ car. The con- Police Department went Exit 22’s off ie., tends the defendants’ ex- actions — ramp to create a checkpoint. traffic When iting the apparently interstate after notic- interstate, cars exited the the officers ing drug checkpoint signs as well as other would detain them to determine whether gave police the officers reason- factors — the drivers had committed traffic vio- able to search the vehicle. The lations possibly any drugs whether argue defendants that each of the factors present. were upon government which the relies is in Highway Exit 22 led to 17 South. The itself innocent and that the factors when officers it selected because considered together simply taken up do not add ie., it a “dead” the stations exit — service reasonable suspicion. reviewing After the and other businesses to which its travel record, briefs and the we conclude the advisory sign led were Although closed. ruling court’s suppressing the closed, the were in stores fact the district items turned up by in such a court found a motorist using Exit search was correct. well-lit, could reach the 24-hour sta- tions accessible Exit 21.

I. Sergeant Honeycutt left the checkpoint Brugal and passengers, Adames and at 3:20 respond a.m. to to an emergency DeJesus, driving were north on Interstate Trooper elsewhere left Lawson in Ridgeland, 95 near South during Carolina charge of the checkpoint. Brugal took early morning hours of October absence, Exit 22 during Honeycutt’s leav- 1997. they approached As Ridgeland, ing the interstate at approximately 3:30 Carolina, South their gasoline tank was Trooper a.m.1 stopped Lawson three-quarters empty. Brugal exited the requested his driver’s license and the interstate at decision he would registration. vehicle’s Brugal produced regret. later license, his valid driver’s which was issued York, in New and his rental contract in a.m., At approximately 3:00 the South lieu of vehicle’s registration. (SCHP) Highway Carolina placed Patrol “drug checkpoint ahead” signs on the Brugal gave Trooper Lawson his license side of Interstate near Exit which is and the rental contract. The rental con- in Ridgeland. signs, The were tract which that the car stated had been rented placed at intervals of one feet thousand Miami and was to be to Miami returned and five hundred feet before the exit were within Trooper the week. Lawson ob- government dispute and the ramp. the lo- exit end district court The stop. Brugal cation of argues disagreement initial noted the but not make an did stopped express finding Lawson the car Brugal's while he was as to exact location right in the ramp, of the exit ramp. lane later on the district court's merges ment, Highway govern- into 17 South. Brugal's opportunity later discussion of hand, argues on the gas Highway other seek indicates that South stopped Brugal Lawson sign near the ambiguity resolved favor. detentions, since investigative cable already paid served investi closely resemble stops more compliance otherwise and was fee arrests. than custodial detentions gative then asked Lawson contract. with the Rusher, United and See the interstate left why he had denied, (4th Cir.1992), cert. Brugal told going. where he was 351, 121 L.Ed.2d headed and was fuel needed that he constitu actions here Bru- The officers’ Lawson returned Virginia Beach. suspi officers had if the rental contract. tional kept but gal’s engaged criminal Brugal was cion that looked into trooper govern id. activity. See the three and saw flashlight, using his court’s to the district challenge is occupants ment’s that the pieces lacked rea the officers that Bru- then asked determination Lawson them. had with fur Brugal pull over suspicion of the sonable the shoulder onto over gal announced standard the ther. Under road. 690, States, 517 U.S. v. United Ornelas request Lawson’s complied 1657, 911 134 L.Ed.2d 699, 116 S.Ct. then the road. Lawson pulled off de suspicion (1996), we review reasonable Bru- cruiser behind his unmarked pulled See id. de novo. terminations headlights, and car, turned on gal’s the mounted on camera the video engaged that the contends government The request- then Lawson his cruiser. dash of that erroneously concluded court out of step three defendants the ed that points It absent. suspicion was He car, immediately did. which the rea it constitute claims to ten factors the if could search then asked collectively. viewed when suspicion sonable prob- “no trooper, Brugal told the vehicle. (1) at the exited 1-95 They are: his re- repeated lem.” illumi large, the exit after first available search, to conduct quest drug check indicating that nated again consented. really there (although point was ahead to search proceeded Trooper Lawson a.m.; (2) It was checkpoint); 3:30 no vehicle, found noth- but the interior i.e., exit, no (3) it has a “dead” Exit 22 is attention turned his ing. He stations, is and there gas or stores open vehicle. in the pieces (4) morning; that time of lighting at little packages bags contained the three Two of from on 1-95 traveling north Brugal was Believing that larger than bricks.2 slightly from a major drug route Miami, is a which narcotics, contained packages the (5) Brugal drugs; major source defendants, Lawson arrested low, had a but he his fuel was claimed that and confiscated impounded (6) left; passed of a tank quarter revealed examination Further packages. at ten miles previous two exits within approximately packages contained 24-hour stations there were which kilo- one cocaine and eight kilograms of lit and visible well signs were whose heroin. gram of (7) a New Brugal possessed highway; (8) license; Brugal rented York driver’s II. Miami, pat a common is car in (ie., flying to drug dealers tern for checkpoint agree All (9) Bru north); driving renting car a Fourth triggered a seizure stop lug had little two comrades and his Dept. gal Michigan analysis. See Amendment traveling they were 444, 450, yet Sitz, gage, claimed 496 Police U.S. State (10) from.Miami; Beach Virginia 412 L.Ed.2d 110 S.Ct. who exited persons The other appli- here analysis applicable clothes, incriminating materials. but bag women’s third contained were from Carolina and were head- South are entitled to some deference. Although ed to a South Carolina destination.3 the Supreme Court recently held that de- terminations of reasonable suspicion are Brugal contends that the district court subject review, to de novo “hastened] correctly suspicion found that reasonable point out that a reviewing court should was absent for the additional detention. take care to ... give due weight to infer- He claims that none of those factors them ences drawn from those facts resident selves are acts wrongdoing and that judges and local law enforcement officers.” collectively, viewed those fac Ornelas, U.S. apply tors to such number of inno 1657. The Fourth Circuit has previ- noted people cent that no should have ously that in analyzing suspi- Compare Georgia, arisen. Reid v. cion, it is important to prac- U.S. 65 L.Ed.2d “eredit[ ] (1980) tical (holding experience that reasonable suspi officers who observe on cion was absent where only daily basis what transpires on the information that the defendant fit some of Lender, street.” United profile courier characteristics and Cir.1993). 151, 154 government the defendant possibly made some evasive would have us here and rule the possible movements because of the appli search valid. cability to people), numbers of innocent Even when deferring officers, to the Sokolow, th United States v.

wi however, we still conclude they that had 1, 9-10, U.S. 104 L.Ed.2d 1 insufficient reason suspect to that Brugal (1989) that (holding completely innocent companions his were involved in illegal behavior give did rise to suspi activity they Brugal ordered pull cion). But here no reasonable over for investigation. further Brugal was revealed. does not claim that the initial traffic Supreme Court has noted that unconstitutional, was and the district court suspicion” “reasonable ais term that de that proper found it was under the Fourth definition, precise fies and describes it as Amendment. Lawson testified “ particularized objective ‘a basis’ for that he and the other officers up had set suspecting person stopped of criminal stop just ramp off the for Exit 22. Ornelas, activity.” See at U.S. put The officers up large, illuminated (citation omitted). 116 S.Ct. 1657 More that stated that there was a check- over, it ais term that contemplates the point (although ahead there really was no “factual and practical considerations of ev itself). checkpoint on 1-95 The officers did eryday life on which pru reasonable and not search —or request consent to men, legal technicians, dent not act.” Illi exiting search—all drugs; motorists for Gates, 213, 231, nois v. rather, they considered the checkpoint (1983) (citation 76 L.Ed.2d 527 omit established the exit to be a traffic ted). Thus, checkpoint. they checked motorists’ specifically, More driver’s registrations, under both licenses and and re- Su preme Court and Fourth prece Circuit leased those motorists who had committed dent, the determinations of officers no traffic violations. Brugal Lawson testified that when did not stretch until the being exited the car after already asked to over officers had made their decision to detention, Thus, phase for the second he detain him further. stretch way stretched in such a as analysis. to set off a "red does not factor into our Even if the flag” nervousness, in Lawson's mind. Lawson testified stretch was an indication of interpret that he has been Brugal's trained to pulled such circumstances —he was over detainees, by by movements ramp that an officer on dark exit at 3:30 stretch indicated that he was under stress. a.m.—could well have caused that reaction. his checking Brugal and stopping After rather defined have a stops

Traffic registration, Lawson license and driver’s conduct held that when We have scope. Exit 22. selected why he asked police: stop, ing such low on he was Lawson that Brugal told license and vehi- a driver’s may request way, long having driven check, Brugal, fuel. computer run a registration, cle three-quar-empty. ters fuel-histankwas low on the driver When a citation. and issue acknowledged themselves later officers Even proof valid produced a has u car, needed that operate entitled he is f way, el. proceed allowed must be delay subject to further being without arguing by The governmentresponds facts those questioning. for additional by police passed well-lit,visible Unit

Rusher, (quoting at 876 966 F.2d 868 gas tenmiles all-night stations in Guzman, F.2d ed States particular, preceding Exit stretch omitted)). (citations Cir.1988) As a southof Exit led mile no traf result, had committed Brugal, who gas sta n. such tio violations, to continue entitled fic argu- However, 'twofacts insignificant. ment render justifiable had a officers unless the journey sign sory First, advi- travel engaged that he was suspect reason 22 indicates leading Rusher, F.2d at to Exit activity. exit.Whilethose stations at that available 876-77. interstate, Brugalleft time closed argument is principal government’s gests sug- nothing record response the interstate Brugal left reason know that.4 which it checkpoint signs, all-nightgas well-lit station as a court found the district claims that was led accessible fromExit Exit which justified the addi- fact, alone that fact and top of and wasvisiblefromthe Exit However, argument that tional detention. ramp. to lowed Brugal been Had 22’s al- First, the points. important ignores up very ramp,the continue the station had Brugal not find that court did government have the refers which would to reason, that for left the interstate in fact visible accessible him. been and government the it did find that although easily short, Brugalproffered and valid pur- for the inference to that was entitled choosing refutable) (or verifiable reason Second, hearing. suppression the poses of reasonshouldhave and that that any important, inference more and engaging any allayed he was that concerns for that reason the interstate Brugal left activity. government’s illegal in by the informa- dispelled have been should have gal’s stop. We gained The government’sother the tion motives theory of Bru- suspicion was that concluded thatreasonable short.It contends falls also Brugal offi- the we have found that suspicion where absent because search existed subsequent should investigation additional cers’ carinMiamiand of a rental criminal activ- about allayed their concerns on Interstate95 travelnorth experience, Sprinkle, York, ity. See officers’a in New the common Cir.1997). pattern 618-19 F.3d glers. smug- followed Those Mia- mi for in smugglers one-way here. rent very important is point last That cars drive north Interstate travel suspicion requisite that the Assuming and directly However, York. New exit the Brugal’s decision from facts arose First, challenge theory. did, certainly should when he is interstate there that Brugal the indicate was evidence responses. allayed by Brugal’s have been trav- indicate gas operation. ours station’s not from the disputed that not It is h area, advisory sign not does travel eling argues to New York. When asked where he that Brugal may well have been an was he told the officers that he going, intelligent criminal attempting to outsmart way were on their passengers Virgi police officers who were suspecting a one- nia way Beach. rental contract— rental. were we to find until complied had he that Brugal properly drew the officers’ stopped required Brugal was to return suspicion by renting the vehicle for round- — the car to Miami within the trip week. One- travel when the officers believed that way contemplated by travel was not one-way travel awas hallmark of criminal Thus, agreement. the facts activity, before the essentially we would make officers establish that not fit indistinguishable did him from every almost general pattern into traffick their person other who rents car. Most—if Thus, ing behavior. neither not all—automobile call contracts choice of exit nor mode of created one-way travel for either or round-trip travel. suspicion viewed Considering both choices to equal be remaining with the factors below. activity marks of criminal only makes us return proposition li- drivers arguments regarding dissent’s Bru- in censed New York who rent cars travel gal’s habits demonstrate the extent suspicious. above, Miami are As stated we required speculation conclude decline to all brand such drivers as crimi- engaged behavior. nals. First, it argues police prop- were erly suspicious Brugal he flew because remaining upon by factors relied York, into from New Miami a car rented officers, even when viewed collectively, north. post drove at 214. How- encompass a “large category such of pre- ever, nothing in suggests the record even sumably innocent travelers” that reason- any proof at the time of Reid, able did not attach. the search that had flown U.S. at 100 S.Ct. 2752. For example, New York or had arrived in Miami from second, (late fourth and ninth factors New York at time renting close to his travel, night travel from source search, At the time of car. all the insufficient trip, respec- officers knew of connection tively) combination of factors New York possessed a driver’s Reid, present rejected and were aas Thus, police license issued there. all the for finding basis reasonable knew had a York driv- New collectively. 441, when viewed See id. at er who rented car in As even Miami. Lender, 100 S.Ct. 2752.5 see But 985 F.2d admits, the dissent nothing there is inher- at 154 (holding that lateness of is hour ently suspicious or unusual about New properly considered as a factor raising sus- renting a car in post Yorker Miami. See picion). have even remarked that We alone, at 214 (“Admittedly, standing there place courts too much reliance on travel nothing atypical is about an individual cities. See source United v. City from New York renting vehicle Wilson, 116, Cir.1991). 126 I many Miami. am sure individuals from government Even the admits that the last so.”). City New York do factor'—'that was licensed to drive argument respect by the insignificant the of New state York—is Brugal’s decision to rent the light car for round- in itself. In number travel, trip, one-way York, rather than also drivers from New and the lack points out the lack of any reasonableness for evidence intention suspecting illegal behavior. dissent there when he was returning stopped, Reid, (and friend) morning. In the defendant flew the Both the defendant his Lauderdale, Atlanta only carry-on bag. into from Fort Florida friend carried at id. (considered 441, drugs) early a source 100 S.Ct. 2752.

212 con (1973), has also invalidated the Court little to the factor this adds find that we illegally detained. See by suspect oth- with the sent combined when analysis even 491, 507-08, 103 460 Royer, v. U.S. Florida factors. er 1319, We L.Ed.2d 75 229 S.Ct. facts, Brugal’s case is distin- those Given of this that, circumstances the think under the by cited those cases guishable from by tainted case, consent was also Brugal’s Supreme Court has the government where deci light In of our illegal detention. the held) (or we held sion, then, subsequent Brugal’s consent of the defendants None suspicion existed. justify the will not the detention 1, 7, Ohio, 88 S.Ct. Terry judgment is Accordingly, search. (1968), 1868, 889 L.Ed.2d hereby 3,n. U.S. Sharpe, 470 Sokolow, (1985), AFFIRMED. Lender, or U.S. police with provided the F.2d at HAMILTON, dissenting: Judge, Circuit conduct, of their explanations

innocent rea- possessed Trooper Lawson Because veri- that could be explanations much less activity was criminal suspicion that sonable suspicions. immediately to refute the fied afoot, constitutionally entitled he was further Moreover, are Sharpe Lender to the his vehicle over direct the defendants distinguishable because further inves- to conduct a side of the road police after evaded those cases subsequent Brugal’s tigation. Because attempted approach police appeared to search to allow consent 3,n. Sharpe, 470 U.S. them. See evidence voluntary, the vehicle was (stating that the defendant 105 S.Ct. 1568 not have the search should during seized pulled be- up as as officer sped soon Ac- court. the district suppressed been Lender, friend); F.2d him and hind the district cordingly, I would vacate “turned that the (stating defendant at 154 sup- grant motion court’s began to leave when his back” and proceedings. for further press and remand and “refused” to approached police so). he do requested I result, suspi- find that As we after his majority detain concludes did not cion exist license and and rental contract after his continued detention driver’s consti verified was agreement were verified. reaching this con tutionally improper. Bru question is whether The final contest, nor clusion, majority does not search. validly gal consented it, validity of initial could issue, but court did not reach -10. at 209 checkpoint stop. See ante an alternative basis as pressed here only with are concerned Accordingly, we court’s determina reversing Bru- decision direct Trooper Lawson’s question is no tion. There the side of vehicle over to gal pull his they may search told the officers the road. given was vehicle. consent ordinary stop traffic that an It is side of the settled pulled over after he was akin to an and is more a limited that we is seizure for the additional detention road a custodial investigative Terry than Supreme illegal. ruled While Rusher, 966 See United States v. the voluntari arrest. has maintained Court (4th Cir.1992). 868, This court his F.2d consent to search suspect’s of a ness of therefore reasonableness of determined assesses question fact belongings is set forth circumstances, principles stops traffic under see light all 1868, Ohio, 1, 88 S.Ct. Bustamonte, 218, v. 392 U.S. Terry 412 U.S. Schneckloth v. Rusher, (1968). 2041, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 248-49, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 93 S.Ct. Terry (DEA) “whether the F.2d at 875. asks Enforcement Administration justified incep- action at its agents, officer’s was who found a amount of co- tion, reasonably it was whether relat- caine in carry-on luggage. 3, his See id. at in scope ed to the circumstances which 109 S.Ct. 1581. The DEA agents had the justified following the interference the first information approaching before 20, (1) place.” Terry, $2,100 392 U.S. 88 S.Ct. the defendant: he paid cash for “If the initial traffic stop airplane bills; tickets from a roll of $20 (2) stop’s proper or the officers exceeded the he traveled under a name that did not scope, the seized contraband is excluded match the name under telephone which his (3) ‘fruit poisonous listed; under the of the tree doc- number was original his destina- ” Rusher, trine.’ 966 F.2d at 875. tion was a source for illicit (4) drugs; stayed he in Miami only an officer effectuates a Once routine “ forty-eight hours, though a round-trip stop, ‘may request the officer flight hours; twenty Honolulu takes registration, driver’s license and vehicle (5) appeared during nervous trip; check, run computer and issue a cita ” (6) he checked none of his luggage. (quoting tion.’ Id. at 876 See id. emphasized The Court the neces- Guzman, (10th 864 F.2d Cir. sity of considering totality of the cir- 1988)). produces Once the driver a valid cumstances order to evaluate the exis- proof that he is entitled to tence suspicion. of reasonable See id. at operate the driver must be 109 S.Ct. 1581. The par- Court attached permitted proceed. “Any See id. fur ticular significance to the pay- defendant’s ther detention questioning beyond is cash, ment of length trip, of his scope Terry stop and therefore to the agents’ reasonable belief that he illegal unless the officer has alias, traveling under an considering suspicion of a serious crime.” Id. at 876- ordinary.” these facts as “out of the Id. at investigative 77. “Whether such an deten Thus, 109 S.Ct. applied as supported by objectively tion is an reason case, this Sokolow teaches us that it is not suspicion of illegal activity able does not enough Lawson could articu- factor, depend upon any one but on the late underlying factors in- decision to totality of the circumstances.” United struct Brugal his vehicle over to the Soto, side of the road if Lawson’s artic- Cir.1993). In assessing whether reason probative ulated factors are not of behav- suspicion able present, we review the ior in people which few innocent would findings district court’s of historical fact engage. together The articulated factors for clear error and the determination of por- must serve to eliminate a substantial suspicion de novo. See Ornelas tion innocent travelers before the re- States, v. United 517 U.S. quirement of reasonable will be 1657, 1663, 134 satisfied. Supreme recognized Court has can, factors consistent with innocent travel Trooper Lawson’s decision to instruct together, when taken give rise to reason to pull his vehicle over to the side suspicion. able See United States v. following Soko road arose from the cir- low, 1, 9, (1) major cumstances: 1-95 is a thorough- (1989) (2) (“[Ajnyone of these fac fare for trafficking; Brugal narcotics proof any illegal tors is not itself only was the non-local or non-Charleston quite conduct and is with got consistent inno resident who off at Exit 22 immediate- cent travel. But together ly we think taken after passing decoy drug two well-lit suspicion.”). amount to reasonable In checkpoint in signs the northbound lane on Sokolow, (3) 1-95; the defendant stopped was at a Brugal had New York State (4) license; Honolulu International Airport by Drug driver’s Brugal rented the ve- gas. find in order he did so to (5) that Miami; practice of a common hide in Brugal then noticed Lawson Miami, Trooper acquire fly couriers is drug gas. a tank of (6) quarter of north; had a vehicle, and a drive drugs, rent for searching that he was Brugal indicated knowledge on his point, At this based tank of quarter a he had though gas even Lawson, who had Trooper experience, and (7) referred to station gas gas; the Shell eighteen years, Trooper for a been State cannot be seen advisory sign by the travel to conclude grounds had reasonable signs of no and the exit showed drug from courier profile of a fit Brugal (8) a.m.; Miami, the defendants activity at 3:30 City who flew New York from (9) a.m.; Brugal and traveling attempting at 3:30 were a and rented three small Law- only City. Trooper passengers York and his return to New Lawson, that, knowledge which, according to based on testified bags son fly to Miami persons, drug couriers experience, and was insufficient destination, New female, such as traveling from from a northern and one two males vehicle, and York, rent a drugs, to obtain Beach. Virginia Miami . Admittedly, drugs. north return with articulated totality, the factors In their alone, nothing atypical there is standing a substantial eliminate by Trooper Lawson City York from New an about individual therefore, travelers; of innocent portion I am sure in Miami. renting a vehicle sus- reasonable possessed Trooper Lawson City do New York many from individuals his vehicle Brugal picion to instruct City facts, York two New So these so. to conduct side of road over vehicle rental and resident Trooper Lawson investigation. further alone, the infer- support do standing not immediately af- 1-95 Brugal exit observed who was a courier Brugal ence checkpoint decoy drug passing ter How- City York Miami. flew New Now, if the were signs that illuminated. ever, facts must considered these be decoy following the around the exit area Law- by Trooper other observed with facts ac- signs of checkpoint signs showed stopped vehicle was son. hotels, a.m., an tivity indication at 3:30 traveling northbound while Carolina South stores, gas stations convenience 1-95 is at 3:30 a.m. on 1-95 from Miami could significance a limited operation, the check- major drug thoroughfare. At at such an exit. leaving 1-95 attach to informs Brugal point, activity But, signs Exit 22 showed no Although 1-95 looking gas. that he is no Because Exit showed a.m. 3:30 sign for a advisory a traveler’s contained a.m., any driver’s activity at 3:30 signs of station, suspi- keep facts several gas Shell gets the reasonable this exit selection of above, First, Exit as noted high. cions flowing. suspicion juices a.m. activity 3:30 showed produced checkpoint, Brugal At the had at least Brugal’s vehicle Third, license and Brugal driver’s gas. New York State of a quarter tank exit, that the vehi- agreement indicating Exit several just passed an by Brugal in Miami twenty-four rented hour stations. cle was well-lit facts, City ad- officer had a New York Brugal light of these driver’s suspicious reviewing remain dress. While would words, Trooper Lawson In other agreement, activities. and rental headed, innocent could few where he was officer conclude asked City are travel- New York “Virginia Beach.” travelers from responded Carolina on 1-95 South why ing northbound asked Trooper Lawson in Miami a vehicle a.m. in rented 22 if at 3:30 his destination got off at earlier,1 the inter- exiting Beach, fourteen hours responded Virginia Therefore, between p.m. October the vehicle at 1:36 rented However, passing decoy drug above, after check- at 210. explained state as all looking gas point signs, an exit suggests evidence Law- activity, shows no of even son grounds had reasonable conclude to though they just passed well-lit had fit the profile of a courier quarter stations and had at least a a of City Miami, New York who flew to short, gas. given tank of the deference vehicle, rented a and was attempting to required give Troop- that this court is to to return to City New York with drugs. experience, er Lawson’s see United States majority reasons that be- Lender, Cir.1993) F.2d Brugal’s cause agreement rental required (noting prac- that we should “credit[ ] the him to return the vehicle to Miami in a experience tical of officers who observe on week, opposed dropping as to inoff New daily a transpires basis what on the City, Brugal’s York activities did not fit a street”), Trooper Lawson’s conclusion that “general pattern of drug trafficking behav- profile fit the of a drug courier ior.” Ante at 211. The flaw in majori- Miami, City from New who York flew to ty’s analysis is by examining revealed vehicle, attempting rented and was to explanations alternative place Bru- City eminently return to New York gal’s activities squarely general within a reasonable. pattern of drug trafficking behavior. reasonable conclusion that First, if one-way rental fits the Lawson drew from his observations cre- (as profile opposed courier simply rent- ates a out ordinary rather travel vehicle), ing a an individual skilled in the Brugal. Why scenario for an would indi- drug trade would want to rent a vehicle on Miami, City fly vidual from New York round-trip suspicion. basis to avoid vehicle, rent a Virginia drive to Thus, Brugal’s plan to, could have been Obviously, Beach? one can conceive of after the deal was consummated in New instances an where individual from New City, York drop the vehicle off at Miami, City York would travel rent a Alamo car rental City New York vehicle, Virginia and drive to Beach. For pay the attendant penalty. Alternatively, example, an individual from New York Brugal’s plan fly could have been to City driving could be an individual from Miami, acquire front, drugs on the rent Miami go Virginia who wished to Beach City and drive to New York with train, fly, and did not like to ride on a ride drugs. consummating After a deal in bus, aon or drive alone. com- City, Brugal New York would then drive significantly mon sense tells us that it is to Miami of boarding plane instead probable more flew from New generated by amount of cash City York a source involving eight kilograms deal of cocaine and, drugs, acquired drugs, fly- instead of kilogram and one of heroin. These two ing with the drugs airplane, on an rented a explanations alternative demonstrate Bru- vehicle in Miami transport drugs gal’s rental of the vehicle Miami itself is City. New York suspicion analy- relevant to the reasonable majority Brugal’s sis and not the duration of rental. downplays this common interpretation Accordingly, Brugal’s sense itin- the duration of rent- travel erary ways. compel in two al does not the conclusion that majority first reasons that “there “general pattern is no evidence that activities did not fit a traveling to New drug trafficking York.” Ante behavior.” Ante at 211.2 agreement

time he rented the vehicle and the time he did ac- If in fact curately length reflect the time he intended approximately exited Exit fourteen hours question, to rent the vehicle in the three small elapsed. The distance between Miami pieces passen- and his approximately and Exit 515 miles. gers signifi- carried with them becomes more than slightly larger packages Sokolow, tained articulated an officer’s Under these two later discovered It was bricks. serve to elimi totality must in their factors approximately contained pieces luggage of trav of innocent portion a substantial nate and one kilo- of eight kilograms cocaine of reasonable requirement before the elers of heroin. case, gram In this satisfied. will be suspicion met articulated factors

Trooper Lawson’s suggests in the record Nothing few, Indeed, any, if innocent burden. this voluntarily consent Brugal did not fly to City, from New York individuals suggests that No evidence search. Virginia drive to rent vehicle gain used coercive tactics .Bru- day Beach, most of the to drive proceed case, facts of this Under the gal’s consent. after the interstate exit night and was consen- Brugal’s of the search vehicle signs, drug checkpoint decoy passing the Fourth consistent with sual and that shows at an exit look for Amendment. a.m., activity at 3:30 signs of II gas stations three well-lit just past a tank of quarter of have at least sum, pos- Trooper Lawson In because gas. suspicion that criminal sessed afoot, constitutionally he was activity.was validity of I address

Finally, must his vehicle entitled to direct defen the search. “A consent to Brugal’s of the road. Because over the side search voluntarily consents who dant subsequent allow Brugal’s consent rights, and Fourth Amendment waives search the vehicle Trooper Lawson to may the search conduct police officer during seized voluntary, the evidence cause or warrant.” probable without suppressed by not have been search should Perrin, 869, 875 v. United I Accordingly, would court. (4th Cir.1995); v. also Schneckloth see of grant vacate the district court’s Bustamonte, 218, 235, 93 S.Ct. for further suppress motion to remand assessing 2041, L.Ed.2d 854 proceedings. con individual’s of an voluntariness totality sent, examine the the court should See United States the circumstances.

of

Mendenhall, U.S. Schneckloth, (1980); U.S. PLETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, Donald over to Brugal pulled his vehicle After road, acti- Lawson Trooper side in his camera video mounted vated America, STATES UNITED directly be- was now located vehicle Defendant-Appellee. vehicle. hind No. 98-1752. Trooper stepped out of his drugs Appeals, if he had asked Court Lawson Lawson also asked vehicle. Fourth Circuit. in the vehicle, and Brugal if he search could Argued: April problem.” “no Brugal responded 23, 1999. July Decided: to search repeated request prob- and, Brugal responded “no again, search, Trooper Lawson During his

lem.” con- luggage that pieces

discovered week-long trip pieces analysis. small cant in the reasonable Virginia Beach and back to from Miami Obviously, find officer would carry only Miami. for three adults unusual

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Alexis A. Brugal Henry M. Adames, M/o Reyna M. Dejesus, F/o

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Date Published: Sep 20, 1999

Citation: 185 F.3d 205

Docket Number: 98-4255

Court Abbreviation: 4th Cir.