*1 II. sum, the district I would reverse complaints dismissing the
court’s-judgment I jurisdiction.
for lack of subject-matter majority’s
respectfully dissent
contrary decision. America,
UNITED STATES Appellee,
Plaintiff — PALMER,
Michael Jerome Appellant.
Defendant —
No. 14-4736. of Appeals, Court
United States Circuit.
Fourth 10, 2015.
Argued: Dec. 21, 2016. April
Decided: Cir.2008) (4th (holding ing expectation "there , challenged provisions applied challenges system public will be constitutional elections, again during brought against plaintiffs financing judicial by future elec candidate, argument cycles”; rejecting "the that an political tion two committees and ‘capable rep though may be even ex-candidate’s claims were the election not mooted only yet evading if ex- political the can etition review’ neither the committees nor alleges alleged specifically an intent to run specifically an intent candidate didate had election”). again cycles; in a participate conclud future in future election
Chesapeake, Virginia. The court conduct- and, early evidentiary hearing an ruling its May favor rendered below, government. explained As we con- are satisfied that the officers did not thus travene the Fourth Amendment and1 affirm.
I.
A. April grand jury the federal Norfolk, Virginia, on two indicted possession intent to distrib offenses: with cocaine, ute in contravention of crack 841(a)(1);' being § U.S.C. a felon firearm, possession of a of 18 in violation § 922(g)(1). sup U.S.C. moved press drug and firearm evidence un *5 derlying charges, Chesapeake which during officers had the October seized stop by of a 2013 vehicle driven May Palmer. In the district court . Broccoletti, ARGUED: James Orlando . suppression motion. See denied Palmer’s Normile, PC, Norfolk, Zoby, & Broccoletti Palmer, v. No. 2:14-cr- United States Virginia, Appellant. Christopher for John (E.D.Va. 5, 2014), May ECF No. 35 Catizone, Office the United States At- (the “Opinion”). Palmer June In Alexandria, torney, Virginia, Appellee. ’ pleaded guilty in in both offenses to. Boente, ON BRIEF:. Dana J. United dictment, right to appeal but reserved Alexandria, Virginia, States Attorney, Dar- suppression ruling. September Mitchell, ryl J. Assistant United States sixty-one him to the court sentenced Attorney, Office' the- At- United States - prison. timely months in Palmer noted Norfolk, torney, Virginia, Appellee. appeal, possess jurisdiction this and we pursuant § 28 U.S.C. WILKINSON,. KING, Before WYNN, Judges. Circuit
B. by published opinion. Judge Affirmed opinion, Judge in which KING wrote the court Because district denied the. Judge joined. WYNN WILKINSON recount suppress, Palmer’s motion we separate concurring Judge WYNN wrote light in the to the facts most favorable opinion. government. See United States Wat KING, Judge: Circuit son, (4th Cir.2013). On 15, 2013, Ring Officer of the Ches appeals the dis- October Michael Jerome sup- apeake police patrolling city’s of his motion to trict court’s was denial press by Ipswich, neighborhood. During patrol, his drug and firearm evidence seized Palmer, Ring stopped driving a traffic in who was officers Altima, car; on Avenue. air silver Nissan Paramont least five fresheners Palm- Ring patrol greet- car and exited his er’s driver’s license address a P.O. When was box, address; opposed to a through the driver-side street window Nissan, registered Nissan was to someone other overwhelming he 'Smelled an driver; than the saw at and Palmer was a sus- odor of air freshener. He least five car, Bounty member Hunter pected hanging air fresheners inside the some Bloods. passenger compartment and others n plugged air-conditioning into the vents. About eleven minutes into Ring Palmer that he had been advised identified Palmer stopped because the Nissan’s windows LInX. that Palmer learned tinted, darkly were too violation state criminal record included four arrests law, inspection stick- and also because drug charges plus illegal an arrest for er on front the vehicle’s windshield possession firearm convicted ap- n peared Ring then fraudulent. obtained result, As a .Ring again felon. radioed Palmer’s driver’s license and the vehicle’s drug dog, about a but was to con- unable card, registration pa- returned to his availability. firm its completing After his trol car to make a check. database search, Ring LInX returned to the Nissan patrol car. suspected Because he registra- From the license and driver’s fraudulent, the inspection was sticker tion list- learned that Palmer to verify authenticity decided the sticker’s aed P.O. box as his and that the address it, by looking at back of which would registered to Nissan was a woman who him to it enable was determine whether not present. begin- Within minutes of legitimate. After asking Palmer exit check, ning the database also learned Nissan, Ring through open leaned Palmer was a member of a driver-side examined the back of door and Bloods, gang Bounty called the Hunter reading *6 sticker. While the according to a “caution” notice issued legiti- sticker —which he was concluded nearby Department. the Norfolk Police Ring marijuana. smelled mate — Opinion colleague, Ring 2. advised his n Officer also on Blount—-who was the Ring immediately Officer Palm- advised purported gang scene—of Palmer’s affilia- grounds er that he to had search Nis- tion, and Blount the availabili- asked about Ring san. Because “110% wanted be ty drug of a dog. drugs sure” that the Nissan be- contained vehicle, however, searching fore he Ring sought Officer also information again drug dog’s checked on availabili- Palmer from another database called point approxi- ty. 3. At that — Ring initially log LInX. could not into the mately minutes after the traffic seventeen system LInX his partner former Ring Offi- had- been called initiated — changed password. eventually had He Duncan, drug dog. cer who had a About LInX, however—about seven accessed later, ten Duncan arrived with minutes stop by utilizing minutes into the traffic — drug dog Boomer. Duncan Boom- walked login Officer Blount’s credentials. As Nissan, dog er around the alerted and Ring logging into searching was LInX and twice. database, drug dog. its he called a about Ring relayed Ring en- by radio the information that Officers and Duncan thereafter nervous; They he dis- gathered: had Palmer was tered searched the Nissan. containing overwhelming plastic bag of covered clear there was an odor air Nissan; console freshener from the there crack cocaine front were center pistol Ring that Specifically, 40-caliber Smith & Wesson observed Palm- wedged “being overly cooperative driver’s seat and the er between the was but still result, very nervous console. As a Palmer was arrested. in his Re- demeanor.” Id. arrest, Ring garding After the search and meas- of air Palmer’s liberal use freshen- ers, Ring explained drug ured the Nissan’s window tint. Those that traffickers “heavy freshening” confirmed initial sus- use air measurements often mask picion “pungent marijuana. that Nissan’s odor” of windows were ille- See id. Ring gally explained drug at 80. also that traf- tinted.1 operate registered fickers often vehicles because, po- That is others. so when the trafficker, apprehend drug they lice tend con- April On the district court registered not to it is seize vehicle if evidentiary hearing ducted an on Palmer’s not present. Similarly, someone when During suppression hearing, motion. Ring light asked—in was the thousand- prosecution’s only Officer wit- —the drug plus investigations which he had his actions and ness—recounted observa- participated a P.O. box on a tions —whether driver’s can be license indicative involve- that, Ring explained before in drug trafficking, responded ment he knew of numerous citizen affirmatively. complaints to the authorities about illegal drugs Ips- emphasized sale and also that he use developed safety wich area. He also described his familiar- after a concern officer legal ity Virginia’s learning limits suspected gang with on window Palmer’s affilia- tinting barely and said that he “could and prior see tion criminal record. stat- “[cjriminal into the driving. gangs vehicle” are street known from department See J.A. Aside the window for violence” and 71-74.2 tint, Ring in- “intelligence reports the Nissan’s received of threats spection illegal, against sticker was based on his law specifically enforcement having experience stopped gang.” numerous the Blood 86. Ring J.A. ex- vehicles with fraudulent stickers. history multiple plained Palmer’s arrests, explained perfo- drug that he could not see the as his as well arrest felon, portion possessing rated that should be observable on a firearm as a convicted legitimate back of legiti- po- sticker. The caused believe “would *7 sticker, said, tentially inspection he the still him.” mate shows have firearm on Id. perforated portion and contains informa- According Ring, to Officer Palmer was identifying tion vehicle. the initially get Nissan, hesitant to out
Although lingered it is understandable for Palmer any and had thereafter near person interacting Ring request- to nervous when front vehicle’s door until be Ring police, Shortly with the Officer said that ed that he to move the car’s rear. thereafter, “appeared to Ring pas- Palmer be more nervous than while was inside the J.A, senger normal” the traffic compartment checking inspec- light permit 1. Officer found that the and windows to side-front transmittance at 46.2-1052(0. § of the Nissan violated Vir- least 35%. See Ann. side-rear windows Va.Code ginia allowing light by law transmittance of -” 25%, only respectively. Virginia 40% 2. Citations herein to “J.A. refer to the requires permit light by windows to Appendix side-front contents of the Joint filed 50%, parties appeal. at in this transmittance of least and side-rear of a window tint sticker, marijuana suspicions based on viola- “smell[ed] tion tion a fraudulent sticker. his of smell very faintly” “sense before Opinion explained pos- The that also the air freshener.” overwhelmed with [was] See n reasonable, suspicion Officer sessed the articulable Ring confirmed that JA 90. activity necessary of criminal to extend as marijuana Blount smelled well. stop, identifying eight supporting at least two other Officer made regard: in that factors suspi- strengthened that observations (cid:127) First, Palmer activity. high of criminal crime area cion Palmer was J.A, hip.” phones complaining two cell on his citizens were about “had where common for According Ring, drug dealing; to 93. “[i]t’s people who narcotics to have distribute (cid:127) Ring that Nissan’s win- believed posses- phone more than one cell in their tinted; illegally dows were Id. He those -involved sion.”- said that (cid:127) nervous; rely phone on one drug trafficking often (cid:127) Nissan emitted an “ovérwhelm- The utilizing pictures while store contacts and . ing” of air scent freshener phone arrange drug the other deals. (cid:127) fresheners; multiple air Second, Ring Palmer was that believed suspicion from himself as seeking divert (cid:127) Palmer was a member and the they waited- -Officer Duncan gang Bounty called the Hunter violent dog. “kept telling us that he drug Bloods;4 a contact helps and that he ha[d] (cid:127) license listed a P.O. Palmer’s driver’s police department.” See id. [in] address, residence; box rather than a ended, hearing court As the the district (cid:127) driving regis- Palmer was a vehicle “present- remarked had name; person’s in another tered very, very careful.ap- ed to this Court a (cid:127) Palmer had “a record .criminal very pearance, person one of who is nar- previous included four arrests seriously trying by what the re- abide charge charges well cotics as quirements of law J.A. are.” See firearm a convicted possession-of a Although it was inclined believe- felon.” lawfully, took the Ring had acted the court .
suppression motion under advisement. Opinion Opinion explained 9. The factors, together, [gave] those “when taken C. they suspicion rise to 5, 2014, inno- May portion On within a a substantial eliminate^] week that criminal evidentiary hearing, court'filed cent travelers' and indicated] the district is, Ring mo- denying activity afoot.” Id. That Opinion [was] its suppression possessed “reasonable neces- tion.3 The concluded Nissan, sary stop beyond original its properly stopped to extend *8 recording doubly sure of Officer a of the to be its 3.- made video time to time wearing interpretation,” Opinion on See stop from he was 1. traffic camera a viewing After the video his uniform. testified, evidentiary hearing "very the the as 4. that it was The district court observed Ring presented propensity district "a court observed with Bloods and their familiar the violence,” very appearance.” prior The involv- See J.A. 206. for on "its cases truthful based pace ing gang.” Opinion reviewed "at a slow See 9 th[at] court later the video members chambers, footage analyze n. in to the 3. stopping 648 (4th Cir.2012). a complet- as as he district court soon 473 When scope and duration n ' (cid:127) motion, suppression has denied a checks.” Id. we view computer the light the in to evidence the most favorable explained that Officer Opinion also The government. See United v. the States the to search probable cause had Watson, 684, (4th Cir.2013). 689 703 F.3d marijuana first smelled when he
vehicle drug dog With- alerted. also after the III. Ring’s entry to specifying out whether inspection sticker constituted the check appeal, On contends Nissan, Opinion conclud- of the search any objectively did not have reason- ... suspicion Ring had “reasonable ed that stop traffic initiating able basis for au- inspection investigate the sticker’s to Nissan, Ring unreasonably and that dispelled that thenticity,” and that expanded scope stop shortly in means suspicion by least intrusive “the began. Ring’s after it Palmer also labels 12- Opinión period short of time.” entry inspec- into-the Nissan view the marijuana Ring’s odor detection constitutionally impermissi- tion sticker ear, turn, supplied ample while government ble. The counters that for a of the Nissan. Accord- cause search legitimately stopped Palmer for officers were also ing Opinion, to the violations, traffic and that subse- searching delay the vehicle and entitled quent actions were consistent with the drug dog.5 wait Fourth Amendment. sum, that Officer Opinion
In ruled A. stop, legitimate Ring had made extending he had sound reasons assessing parties’ Before con subsequent actions and that his tentions; pertinent identify legal we some the Fourth Amendment. did not violate principles. The Fourth Amendment suppress the evidence Palmer’s motion against “unreasonable guards searches Const, therefore denied. The constitutionali- was U.S. A seizures.” See IV. amend! ty Ring’s search-and-seizure' activities stop is a the- “seizure” within mean question preserved Palmer’s the sole ing of Fourth Amendment and be must guilty plea. conditional reasonable under the circumstances. See Prouse, 648, 653-54, Delaware v. 440 U.S.
II.
(1979).
1391,
99
649 Rusher, 868, safety-related v. 966 F.2d duct checks do not United States 875 bear (4th Cir.1992). Second, directly stop, we examine on the for the reasons such the actions of the authorities dur requesting whether a driver’s license vehicle ing stop “reasonably the traffic relat were registration, checking or for criminal rec scope” the bases the seizure. outstanding ords and arrest warrants. See — (internal omitted). quotation Id. marks States, , Rodriguez v. U.S. United — 1609, 1615-16, 135 191 492 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 1, (2015). however, Generally, an officer’s Supreme As the has ex Court focus remain must bases on plained, Terry’s prong first is satisfied stop, stop traffic in that “suffi must be it for police “whenever is lawful to detain ciently scope limited in and- duration to an occupants pending automobile and its satisfy investigative of an conditions inquiry into a vehicular violation.” See Guijon- seizure.” See United States v. Johnson, 827, 555 at 129 U.S. S.Ct. 781. Ortiz, 757, (4th Cir.2011) 660 F.3d 764 question, may such a violation in Without (internal omitted). quotation marks comply clude failure to with traffic laws.
See,
Green,
e.g., United
v.
States
740 F.3d
Thus, when
on
following up
Cir.2014)
275,
(4th
(concluding
n. 1
279
initial reasons for a traffic stop, the officer
“illegally
Virgi
that windows
under
tinted”
employ
must
“the least
intrusive means
“justif[ied]
nia law
stop”);
United
reasonably
verify
dispel
available
or
498,
Digiovanni,
States v.
650 F.3d
506-07
period
short
[his]
time.”
(4th Cir.2011) (observing that officer made
(internal
Digiovanni,
650 F.3d
507
stop
traffic
of perceived
basis
violation
omitted).
quotation
clear,
marks
To be
Maryland
prohibits following
law that
not require
the law does
that the officer
another
closely).
vehicle too
employ the least intrusive means conceiva
Sharpe,
ble. See United States v.
470 U.S.
In assessing
legitimacy
of a
675, 686-87, 105
1568,
S.Ct.
(4th Cir.2013)
Relatedly,
legitimate
stop
(observing
that a traffic
may
if
legitimate
prolonged
officers
“become
it is
“when
observe
traf
unlawful
violation,
true,
fic
regardless
beyond
of their
sub
reasonably required”
the time
vehicle”).
jective
stopping
motives for
complete
objectives.
its initial
See Illinois
Caballes,
405, 407,
543 U.S.
125 S.Ct.
(2005).
cion tively grounds stopping for reasonable giovanni, 650 F.3d 507. is Nissan. That contention meritless. suspicion Reasonable on Ring was familiar with the limits win- “commonsense, nontechnical” standard and, Virginia in his dow tint under law experienced judgment on relies view, too dark. the Nissan’s windows were officers, legal techni “not law enforcement nothing that indicates the points Palmer States, v. United 517 cians.” See Ornelas clearly crediting court district erred 1657, 690, 695, 134 L.Ed.2d 116 U.S. S.Ct. Ring’s testimony on that issue. See Unit- (1996) (internal omit quotation 911 marks McGee, 263, (4th v. 736 F.3d 271 States ted). recently explained United As we Cir.2013) (concluding that district court’s Williams, articulated factors States v. testimony regarding reliance on officer’s during supporting light inoperative clearly brake er- stop totality “must their serve roneous). recognized, illegally As we have of innocent portion eliminate a substantial jus- are alone “sufficient tinted windows travelers,” connec also demonstrate Green, tify” a traffic 740 F.3d at See activity. tion to criminal See 808 F.3d reject 279 n. 1. thus Palmer’s conten- We (internal (4th Cir.2015) quotation 246 any objectively tion that lacked rea- omitted). marks stopping the Nissan. sonable basis Finally, although an officer possess may stop a traffic when he extend 2. suspicion, he cannot search es reasonable Turning to the events that con stopped he obtains vehicle unless transpired after the Nissan had been sent, warrant, develops proba or secures acknowledges stopped, Palmer that when contains ble cause to believe the vehicle probable officer has cause to believe a an activity. criminal United evidence of contraband, the Fourth vehicle contains (4th Baker, 319 States “permits police to search the Amendment Cir.2013). An of mari officer’s detection Appel vehicle more.” See Br. of without
juana odor is sufficient to establish such
(internal
omitted).
quotation
lant
marks
cause,
v. Car
probable
see United States
checking
While
Nissan’s
ter,
(4th Cir.2002),
as is a
300 F.3d
sticker,
marijuana.
Officer
smelled
vehicle,
drug dog’s
trained
alert
see
point,
probable
At that
he had
cause to
586, 592
Kelly,
States v.
592 F.3d
United
contraband,
the vehicle
believe
contained
(4th Cir.2010).
princi
foregoing
theWith
to search it.
and was therefore entitled
mind,
ples
present
we turn
the issues
Carter,
Thus,
300 F.3d at
unless
appeal.
ined Palmer’s
some
can demonstrate
constitu
stop
tional
between the time the
violation
B.
began
point
smelled
marijuana,
cannot
supp
the evidence
be
respect
Terry’s
regard,
first
In that
With
asserts
ressed.6
prong
Ring transgressed Terry’s
articulated
second
—whether
legitimate— prong by taking
actions
the traffic
bases
were
immediately
support
proposition
smell-
6. Rather than search
after
for the
Nissan
ing marijuana,
Kelly,
waited about ten
592 F.3d at
contained contraband.
.
drug dog
for the
minutes
Boomer to arrive.
strong
dog’s
provided
The
alerts
additional
*11
reasonably
Appellant
in
Br. of
18. To
not
related
describe that
stop that were
See
stop.
police
to
contention is to discard it. A
officer
scope
bases
initial
.
inquire
to
into a
crim-
is entitled
motorist’s
a.
initiating
stop,
after
a traffic
inal record
Palmer,
and
fault
un-
we cannot
with a
According to
—faced
scope
stop
suspected
gang
member of a
reasonably expanded the
violent —for
Green,
investiga-
beginning
unjustified drug
doing
an
so here. See
by
Palmer also that Officer maintains Nis- conducted a search ii. warrantless he, probable without cause san when stuck Although Palmer has to es failed head the car examine its inside any expectation tablish of privacy, he also Palmer, According to sticker.. clearly-erred asserts that the court district' Ring’s actions *13 most intru- constituted.“the findings in its regarding inspection the confirming or sive means of the dispelling and, appearance consequently, sticker’s validity Appel- of the sticker.” Br. See of that Ring Officer lacked a sus , government 33. The lant counters that picion that’ the was sticker fraudulent. within conduct search tie did.not Palmer also contends that failed- to Amendment, of meaning the Fourth arid reasonably utilize the least intrusive means argues simply, seeking that was “a investigate to available the sticker. We look” at better item a motorist is that “an Terry’s those evaluate contentions under on legally required display to vehicle [his] prong. Guijon-Ortiz, second See 660 F.3d for ready inspection by enforcement.” law at 764. of Appellee See Br. reviewing findings When factual i. error, for clear particularly “[w]e defer determinations, credibility frames contention re a.district court’s garding Ring’s Officer examination of is the the role of the district court to it. inspection weigh in terms of sticker “reasonable observe witnesses credibil their applicable pre-trial ity during suppress.” ness.” Under the principles, motion Ali, Ring’s entry contest into the Nissan on the See United States v. Abu F.3d 528 search,. (4th Cir.2008) (internal ground 210, that it Palm quotation was an 232 illegal omitted). legitimate Opinion er must show that he had “a marks credited Of The expectation privacy Ring’s of in testimony regarding ap ficer the area Castellanos, pearance inspection searched.” See v. 716 of United sticker 828, (4th Cir.2013) Ring’s (relying explicitly relying F.3d 832 on the traffic on Rawlings Kentucky, 98, v. U.S. 104- observations that “had seen numerous 448 (1980)). 100 65 633 fraudulent that Nissan’s S.Ct. L.Ed.2d stickers” and asserted, shown, Palmer has much less’ fraud not sticker “looked like’those any legitimate expectation privacy past.” of stickers .seen in the ulent he had
particularly good Finally, driving reg simply indicator of criminal 250-51. a vehicle activi- ty, everyone party to an not a becausé most is nervous when istered absent third is also factor, could, Williams, interacting strong proper police. See but in the situa with the 808 Second, tion, listing possibility box indicate the of a ’’stolen veh F.3d at 248. of P.O. license, op- drug trafficking.” as an address on a driver’s or States v. United icle address, (10th Cir.2011) posed strong Ludwig, 641 to a is not a F.3d 1249 residential omitted). (internal quotation of'suspicious indicator conduct. See id. at marks
654 sus- ably verify dispel [his] court also available to or 11. The district Opinion see, period from time.” See picion could not out short found (internal Nissan, Digiovanni, quo- F.3d portion perforated “the side omitted). tation marks middle of the sticker and that sits by theft de designed prevent sticker demonstrating The burden Moreover, court itself taching.” Id. appropriateness conduct [of the sticker both the video “examined Roy government. is on the See Florida photograph” stop] and the traffic 491, 500, er, 460 U.S. 103 S.Ct. into See id. introduced evidence. (1983) opinion). (plurality L.Ed.2d 229 We at 12. mindful, course, “scope of that the are vary,” depend Ring’s testimony permitted the intrusion will Based ev- ing specific examination of the on the facts and circumstances. the district court’s idence, Again, findings in- Id. we are bound found lighter they clearly in color court unless are than the district spection sticker Ali, perforated that “the erroneoús. Abu at 232. normal and middle in rejecting car’s In theories for less portion not visible Palmer’s [was] alternatives, Opinion explained char- Opinion 12. Palmer trusive outside.” See differently, it evidence but that was clear that Officer acterizes —a to a nothing city police officer—had access state contradicts points circumstances, of vehicle in findings. registration court’s such database *14 clearly that also that say cannot the court formation. The observed we McGee, inspection at Be- there was no indication that the 271. erred. Ring legitimate basis for be- certificate was in the Nissan the cause lieving inspection the sticker was
fraudulent, agree that the facts recit- we Ring’s We cannot doubt Officer state- court, “coupled with Officer any ment that he not familiar with was Ring’s training experience with in- state database such Palmer'describes. stickers,” support “reason- spection or persuaded presence Nor are we that the Ring required to investi- able of has inspection absence certificate gate authenticity.” sticker’s any to ask significance. was entitled Opinion 12. vehicle, see step Palmer out Mimms, 106, Pennsylvania v. 434 U.S.
iii. (1977) 330, 54 98 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 331 that, curiam), not (per give even and it does us Finally, argues pause light if sus of Palmer’s affiliation with Ring possessed —in picion inspection gang, prior charges, sticker was his criminal violent fraudulent, apparent felony conviction—that investigation his means were improper. posits request that Palmer exit the two alternatives would him the Nissan rather than reach regard: could have “run have something passenger through sight the State out number the sticker database”; compartment. Finally, or of Palmer’s Police have neither could “asked expedi- proposals Br. of been more inspection for the certificate.” See would have tious, examining In Appellant assessing those alterna 33. —in ’ tives, inspection decide district back sticker —was we must whether out of Nissan. The correctly promptly court em concluded its bur- government has ployed means reason- therefore satisfied “the least intrusive den, readily showing [inquiring into the criminal motorist’s rec- means Ante, investigating ord] sticker were here.” 651. unreasonably intru-
appropriate and
sive. circumstances, con- we are these' that no
vinced constitutional violation oc- Sharpe, 470 U.S. at
curred. (“The question simply
S.Ct. 1568 is not
whether some other alternative avail- HARBOURT;
able, Claudia Michael but unrea- whether acted Lukoski; Pocknett, Ursula failing sonably recognize pursue or to it.”). result, Plaintiffs-Appellants, , As a the district cor- court rectly suppression Palmer’s motion. denied MARYLAND, PPE CASINO RESORTS
IV. LLC, Defendant-Appellee. foregoing, Pursuant judgment No. 15-1546. court is district affirmed. Court of Appeals, United States
AFFIRMED Fourth Circuit. Argued: March
WYNN, Judge, Circuit concurring: April Decided: fully I majority opinion. concur in the separately
I emphasize write that while
the Supreme Court omitted criminal back-
ground “ordinary checks from its list of
inquiries” authorized to every incident States, stop, Rodriguez
traffic v. United
— -, 1609, 1615, U.S. S.Ct. (2015),
L.Ed.2d 492 this Court United Green, (4th
States v. 740 F.3d Cir.
2014), held that a stop reason
ably prolonged in order conduct
background check driver’s
“demeanor throughout behavior stop conjunction with out [an
standing] protective [against order
driver] raised concerns officer about safe
ty.” Id. case,
In this specific circumstances the officer at least indicate legitimate
some safety. concern for his own
Thus, agree I majority opinion with the “we cannot fault with a —faced gang member of violent —for