United States of America v. David A. Callison
No. 20-1398
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
July 2, 2021
Submitted: January 15, 2021
Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines
Before LOKEN, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
The district court granted David A. Callison‘s motion to suppress drug-related evidence that the Des Moines police uncovered during a traffic stop. The government appeals that decision. We reverse.
In the middle of the night, Officer Andrew Kilgore saw a car driving through a residential area with a broken license-plate light. He followed the car for several blocks and activated his emergency lights after the car pulled into a driveway. After boxing the car in, he briefly turned off his headlights to confirm that the license plate was not lit. It wasn‘t. And that violated Iowa law.1
Officer Kilgore then walked to the driver‘s side. Three people sat inside: (1) Timothy Rios was driving; (2) Kelly Shannon was the front passenger; and (3) Callison was in the backseat. Officer Kilgore mentioned the broken light and asked Rios for his license, registration, and insurance. He then asked Rios who owned the car and why Rios was stopped at this particular house. “Dropping off a friend,” Rios responded. He gave Officer Kilgore his license but could not find proof of registration or insurance. Officer Kilgore returned to his cruiser to check the police records. As it turned out, Rios had a valid license, a properly registered car, and no outstanding warrants.
When Officer Kilgore returned to the car several minutes later, Rios still had not found proof of insurance. Officer Kilgore then shined his flashlight in the backseat and asked Rios a series of questions around five minutes into the encounter. He first asked Rios, “What‘s the address here? Tell me what‘s the address here, without looking?” Rios couldn‘t. Officer Kilgore next asked, “Then why did you stop here? Why are you sweating profusely?” Rios answered that they were “dropping off a friend.” Officer Kilgore then asked, “What is the friend‘s name?” Simultaneously, Callison said, “Neil,” while Shannon said, “Rob.” After making further comments about Rios‘s perspiration, the temperature, and the unknown address, Officer Kilgore asked around six minutes into the encounter what was “illegal in the car or on [Rios] that [Kilgore] need[ed] to know about?”
Officer Kilgore called for backup. He continued the questioning and then ordered Rios out of the car. When asked again why he was sweating, Rios said, “Because I‘m nervous, maybe.”
When backup arrived, the officers ordered Shannon and Callison out of the car. Shannon dropped a cigarette pack as she got out. Officer Kilgore picked it up and found a substance inside that field tested as methamphetamine. He then searched the car and found a duffle bag inside that contained methamphetamine, digital scales with methamphetamine residue, two prescription-drug bottles, and a large amount of cash. The officers arrested Callison along with the other two, got a warrant for Callison‘s home after interviewing him, and then searched his home.
Callison moved to suppress the drug-related evidence from the vehicle, as well as his statements and other evidence later found at his home. He argued that Officer Kilgore unlawfully prolonged a routine traffic stop without reasonable suspicion and argued that the evidence against him should be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree. The district court granted the motion, concluding that Officer Kilgore unlawfully extended the traffic stop when he began asking travel-related questions without reasonable suspicion. The government now appeals.
II. Analysis
The government first argues that Officer Kilgore did not extend the traffic stop until he asked Rios if there was anything illegal
In the motion-to-suppress context, we review a district court‘s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Murillo-Salgado, 854 F.3d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 2017). The Fourth Amendment makes “unreasonable searches and seizures” unlawful.
But a lawfully-initiated traffic stop can become unlawful if it is unreasonably extended. “A seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation, therefore, ‘become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission’ of issuing a ticket for the violation.” Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 350-51 (2015) (alterations in original) (quoting Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005)). In Caballes, the Supreme Court held that using a drug dog to sniff around a car during a lawful traffic stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment when the stop did not last longer than needed to issue a warning ticket and conduct ordinary inquiries. 543 U.S. at 407, 410. A decade later, adhering to Caballes‘s principle, Rodriguez expressly held “that a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution‘s shield against unreasonable seizures.” 575 U.S. at 350 (rejecting reasoning then followed in this circuit that de minimis extensions to traffic stops are acceptable to allow for dog sniffs or other investigative measures).
Here, the district court held that Officer Kilgore unlawfully extended the traffic stop roughly five minutes into the encounter when he first began asking travel-related questions. But it is clear from the facts that Rios was still searching for proof of his insurance at that point. So, when Officer Kilgore asked his initial series of travel-related questions between five and six minutes into the encounter, he was still “handl[ing] the matter for which the stop was made” - here “issuing a ticket for the [unlit-license-plate] violation.” Id. at 350-51. Just like in Caballes, where the Supreme Court upheld a dog sniff that did not extend a traffic stop, 543 U.S. at 407, 410, here Officer Kilgore‘s initial questions between five and six minutes into the encounter did not extend the stop either.
We therefore conclude that the district court erred in holding that Officer Kilgore needed reasonable suspicion of another crime to extend the stop when he began asking travel-related questions five minutes into the encounter. Because Officer Kilgore was still “handl[ing] the matter for which the stop was made” at that point, Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 350, his questions between five and six minutes into the encounter did not extend the stop.2
The government next argues that by the time Officer Kilgore asked if there was anything illegal in the car (around six minutes into the encounter), he had the reasonable suspicion required to extend the stop. Again, we agree.
To extend a routine traffic stop, an officer needs reasonable suspicion of additional criminal activity. See Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 355. Reasonable suspicion requires “specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant” a brief investigative stop. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968). This standard is “less demanding” than probable cause and much lower than preponderance of the evidence. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000). In the traffic-stop context, actions that characterize “a very large category of presumably innocent travelers” will not meet the standard. Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 441 (1980).
We have held in the past that each of the following factors, in combination with others, can help support reasonable suspicion: (1) unusual driving behavior, see United States v. Walker, 555 F.3d 716, 720 (8th Cir. 2009); (2) attempts to evade officers, see United States v. Noonan, 745 F.3d 934, 936 (8th Cir. 2014); (3) indirect or incomplete answers to officer questions, see Murillo-Salgado, 854 F.3d at 416; (4) nervousness and lack of eye contact, see United States v. Foley, 206 F.3d 802, 804, 806 (8th Cir. 2000); and (5) “seeming implausibilities and inconsistencies in the responses to [an officer‘s] routine questions” about travel plans. See United States v. Hogan, 539 F.3d 916, 919, 921 (8th Cir. 2008).
Here, we conclude that the following facts, taken together, supported reasonable suspicion for Officer Kilgore to extend the stop around the six-minute mark: (1) the car pulled into a residential driveway after Officer Kilgore followed it for a brief time without activating his lights; (2) it was the middle of the night; (3) Rios was avoiding eye contact and behaving nervously during the encounter; (4) no one in the car knew the address or street where they stopped; and (5) the driver said they were dropping off a friend, but the two passengers gave different names for that friend.
We have concluded that reasonable suspicion was present in similar cases. See Murillo-Salgado, 854 F.3d at 416; Walker, 555 F.3d at 720; Hogan, 539 F.3d at 919, 921; Foley, 206 F.3d at 804, 806. In Hogan, for example, we held that nervousness and inconsistent answers to questions were enough for reasonable suspicion. 539 F.3d at 919, 921. Similarly, in Foley, we held that officers had reasonable suspicion to
III. Conclusion
For these reasons, we vacate the district court‘s suppression order and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.