United States v. Robert Lambert

arrival, baggage time and the claim McWILLIAMS, Before BRORBY number. BURCIAGA,* Judges, and Senior Circuit Following the arrival of Mr. Lambert’s Judge. District flight, agents located his suitcase in the non-public baggage area behind the carousel. BRORBY, Judge. The suitcase bore Mr. Lambert’s name and 11(a)(2), to Fed.R.Crim.P. Pursuant tag given Agent address and the to number Lambert, defendant, Robert entered condi- Joyce by Agent Hughes. agents The then guilty to three counts of un- pleas tional baggage went to the claim area to see who possession lawful with intent to distribute bag. waiting, Agent would claim the While substances,1 reserving right his to controlled man, Joyce saw a later as Mr. identified court’s denial of his mo- appeal the district Lambert, extremely who to be ner- suppress allegedly tion evidence obtained to bag vous. Mr. Lambert retrieved his from in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We airport very quickly. the belt and left the § jurisdiction have under U.S.C. retrieving luggage, reverse. After his Mr. Lambert parking headed to the lot where his car was parked. approached As Mr. Lambert BACKGROUND his car hand, keys Joyce in Agents and Stans- court, facts, by The as found the district berry approached, identified themselves as a.m., are as follows. At 5:10 on December DEA, agents they of the and said wanted to one-way Mr. a Lambert made res- speak with agents inquired him. The wheth- flight ervation for a on a from Los seat in, just er Mr. Lambert had flown and asked California, Wichita, Angeles, to Kansas. He examining to see his airline ticket. After purchased ticket with cash at the the $360 name, they ticket which bore his returned it. Angeles Mr. Airport Los at 9:25 a.m. Lam- They then asked for his driver’s license a.m., flight departed bert’s and he 10:03 which he turned over. The license was is- deplaned Airport in at the Mid-Continent by name, sued Iowa and bore his an address shortly Upon Wichita p.m. after 5:00 his Lake, Iowa, Spirit photograph. in and a The Wichita, arrival in Mr. Lambert went to the information on the driver’s license matched baggage airport claim area of the and waited tag that on the identification on Mr. Lam- for his suitcase. agents bert’s suitcase. Lam- “[T]he retained baggage Also at the claim area were three bert’s [driver’s] license from the time he was Drug Agency of the Enforcement requested present to identification until the (DEA): Joyce, Stansberry, Craig Gerard leave,” i.e., twenty time he was allowed to M.W. McDonald. The were at the twenty-five minutes. airport in response telephone a call re- Hughes, ceived that afternoon from Jim a began questioning then agent DEA Airport Worth Dállas/Fort Mr. Lambert purpose about the nature and in Agent Texas. Hughes provided the fol- of his Mr. travel. Lambert stated he was in lowing Agent Joyce: information to produced Wichita on business and a business person by indicating [A] the name of Robert Lambert card he worked at an automobile purchased cash, company Spirit one ticket on service Lake. Mr. Lam Angeles cooperate American Airlines from Los bert continued to with the Wichita. purchased shortly they questioned Finally, The ticket as him further.2 * Burciaga, amphetamine, marijuana, The Honorable Juan G. Senior District all in violation of 841(a)(1). Mexico, Judge § sitting by 21 U.S.C. for the District of New designation. government attempts 2. The to make much of the 1. Mr. charged pos- allegedly suspicious Lambert was with unlawful inconsistent answers cocaine, gave response agents’ session with intent to meth- Mr. Lambert to the distribute question Amendment is also law his suit- they could search if agents asked we review de novo. a choice if he had Lambert asked case. informing him that matter, and after Carhee, 1496- States v. United did, to consent to refused (10th Cir.1994) (citations omitted). Mr. Lambert he they bag. agents then said search of types citizen-police encoun the three Of him and his suitcase from going to take were Court, Supreme see ters identified bag. Mr. dog to sniff the try get United States “against his said that would Lambert (10th Cir.1992), only implicated by two are 1450-51 agents informed Mr. of the After one will.” encounters that do not this case: consensual seizing bag, his driv- Amendment, e.g., implicate the Fourth Mich turned over to an license was er’s Chesternut, 567, 574-76, 108 igan v. on it. computer run a check safety officer to 1975, 1979-81, (1988), 100 L.Ed.2d 565 S.Ct. outstanding no warrants. check revealed The that are Fourth investigative and detentions li- Mr. Lambert’s agents The then returned scope limited and Amendment seizures of him free to leave. Mr. and told he was cense by supported a reason duration and must parking and left the got into his car Lambert activity, e.g., suspicion of criminal Unit able approximately at 6:00 his suitcase lot without Sokolow, 1, 7, v. 490 U.S. 109 S.Ct. ed States p.m. (1989). 1581, 1585, ques 1 104 L.Ed.2d is the encounter between tion before whether later, Mr. Lam- Roughly thirty minutes agents Lambert and the was a consensu Mr. drug subjected to a detec- was bert’s suitcase investigative an detention al encounter or smelling bag. dog tion who alerted after latter, agents if the whether the and dog’s qualifi- uncertain as to the

Apparently suspicion Lambert. to detain Mr. reasonable substances, to detect controlled cations dog arranged a second sniff which for beyond dispute that “a seizure It is hour after the first. about one occurred simply police a officer does not occur because smelling bag. dog alerted after That too asks a few an individual and approaches a prepared application an Bostick, 429, v. 501 U.S. questions.” Florida warrant, magistrate issued search which 2386, 434, 2382, 111 115 L.Ed.2d 389 S.Ct. searched, night. the co- later that When (1991). may approach an individual Officers marijuana, caine, methamphetamine, and randomly or on a hunch. questions ask based, were upon prosecution this is which Manuel, 272, 274 v. United States found. (10th Cir.1993). person If a “reasonable police disregard the would feel free ‘to DISCUSSION business,’” is the encounter go about his Amendment is and the Fourth of a motion to consensual appeal from the denial On 434, Bostick, at 111 implicated. 501 U.S. suppress, we review the evidence (quoting v. Hodari government at 2386 to the S.Ct. light most favorable California 1547, 1552, D., 621, 628, 111 S.Ct. court’s factual 499 U.S. we review the district (1991)). police- L.Ed.2d 690 Whether error. We review 113 findings for clear a seizure turns novo, however, encounter constitutes court’s con- citizen de the district the circumstances of “all consideration as to when a seizure occurred clusions reasonable, surrounding to determine the encounter artic- whether the officers had com would have activity police conduct at the whether suspicion ulable of criminal person that municated to ultimate determi- time of the seizure. The officers’ free to decline the person Fourth was not under the nation of reasonableness (statements 17, (1963) given dur- 9 L.Ed.2d 441 questioning. the reasons that fol- continued For low, suspicion by illegal any ing period Mr. Lambert’s detention are inadmissible aroused agents questions responses cannot be con- voluntarily given to the are the though if even assessing had rea- detention). sidered in whether Accordingly, illegal product of the all to detain him because these sonable facts or determine wheth- we do not detail these and actions occurred after Lam- statements suspicion was cre- any objectively er Wong Sun v. United bert had been seized. See ated therefrom. 407, States, 471, 83 S.Ct. 415- 371 U.S. 1068 (10th Cir.) (“This terminate follows the or otherwise the encoun- 1483

requests Bostick, 439, bright-line 111 rule that an encounter initiated 501 U.S. S.Ct. ter.” stop may a traffic not be deemed consensual unless the driver’s documents have been re inception that at is no doubt its There — denied, U.S.-, him.”), turned to cert. and Mr. between the encounter (1994) 1862, 114 S.Ct. 128 L.Ed.2d 484 and in no im permissible Walker, United States v. plicated Fourth Amendment. This is Cir.1991) (“the (10th encounter this case request to examine of the officers’ true even clearly not consensual. Graham Officer ticket and driver’s license. Mr. Lambert’s retained the defendant’s driver’s license and 491, 501, Royer, 460 v. See Florida registration during ques the entire time he (1983) (per 75 L.Ed.2d 229 S.Ct. defendant.”), Werking, tioned the request agents to and examine missible for (“The investigative F.2d at 1408 initial deten license); passenger’s ticket and driver’s tion was concluded when re [the officer] Mendenhall, United States Werking’s registration pa turned license 1870, 1877-78, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 pers. point, At ... this the encounter be (1980) (same). encounter.”). ordinary came an consensual However, began what as a consensual cases, Mr. Lam the above cited As investigative quickly became an encounter reasonably bert would not have free to felt Lam once the received Mr. detention leave or otherwise terminate the encounter and did not return it to bert’s driver’s license with the because his driver’s license rejected Royer, argu him. In the.Court had not been returned to him. While we DEA an encounter between ment that agree government with the that Mr. Lambert of an passenger and an air concourse taxi, airport by plane, could have left the or airport consensual. The Court first con was street, simply walking prac down the as a “[ajsking examining Roy- for and cluded that go. tical matter he was not free to er’s ticket and his driver’s license were no by Lambert was confronted as he permissible Royer, themselves.” doubt preparing open was the door to his car 501, 103 However, at 1326. 460 S.Ct. U.S. away. lawfully and drive He could not leave “[ejritical Plurality’s holding [that to the parking lot in his car without his driver’s consensual] encounter was not was the offi license. 8-244. See Kan.Stat.Ann. cers’ retention of defendant’s identifica question of whether an individual has been matter, practical ‘as a tion and ticket because person detained turns on whether a under not [the could leave the defendant] reasonably the circumstances would feel at ” Bloom, 975 without them.’ F.2d 1452 liberty agents’ questions to refuse the or 9, (quoting Royer, 460 at 503 n. 103 Bostick, otherwise terminate the encounter. 9). n. S.Ct. at 1327-28 See also United 439, 501 U.S. at 111 at 2388-89. The S.Ct. (10th 1404, Werking, States v. 1408 not, question government is as the seems to (seizure Cir.1990) Royer agents’ due to suggest, per whether it is conceivable that a retention of defendant’s driver’s license and son could leave the location of that encoun ticket). Jordan, v. Accord United States 958 ter. (D.C.Cir.1992). 1085, Though F.2d 1087 case, directly clearly point in the context of this Precedent that on establishes consistently the Tenth has held that when law enforcement officials retain an indi ques the undue of an vidual’s driver’s in the course of retention individual’s driver’s license him, individual, rule, during general stop tioning license a traffic the en that as a renders reasonably counter nonconsensual. United will not feel free to terminate the Compare Gonzalez-Lerma, 1479, States v. encounter.3 is no basis on which to There stop, proof oper- In the context of a we held: id that he is entitled to traffic have license car, proceed he be allowed to conducting stop ate the must An officer a routine traffic may request istration, way, being subject delay reg- to further driver’s license and vehicle his without check, computer questioning. run a by police and issue for additional produced citation. When the driver has a val-

1069 spend only forty- Honolulu to hours from from this case.4 precedent that distinguish in Miami. The Court concluded eight concluding Mr. difficulty hours such, no we have As together, these facts that when taken agents because by the seized was suspicion the de to a reasonable amounted reasonably felt free not have he would illegal drugs. Id. transporting fendant was terminate agents or otherwise ignore the 1, 6, Rodriguez, 469 U.S. 105 In Florida v. with them. encounter (1984) 308, 311, (per 165 83 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. investiga by of an means A seizure curiam), had concluded the officers the Court sup if “is constitutional tive detention activity illegal suspicion of a reasonable suspi articulable ‘by a reasonable ported of the defendants who warrant the detention engaged in is person seized that cion saying the officers twice overheard ” Ward, activity.’ States United criminal officers; seeing after “get out of here” Cir.1992) (10th 1526, (quoting F.2d 1529 961 officers; attempted to evade who 438, 440, 100 S.Ct. Georgia, 448 U.S. Reid v. regarding contradictory statements gave who (1980) cu 2752, 2754, (per L.Ed.2d 890 65 Likewise, Royer, identity. their riam)). determining whether In 2, at 1322 n. at 493 n. 103 S.Ct. “ exists, totality the circum ‘the 1326-27, suspicion exist the Court held be taken picture whole stances —the —must the defendant was the officers knew ed when picture, upon that whole into account. Based alias; traveling paid cash for under an particular detaining must have officers York; one-way ticket from Miami New suspecting the objective basis for ized young, casually dressed and of criminal activi person stopped particular nervous; carrying luggage ap (quoting F.2d at ty.’” luggage heavy; had filled out peared Cortez, 449 U.S. States v. United tags an address but omitted identification (1981)). 66 L.Ed.2d many of the facts phone number. While guide “may law to shortage of case in these cases There is no noted the Court whether, travel,’ and under what of determining innocent each ‘quite in consistent with us circumstances, suspicion objectively suspi is reasonable some share[s] there these cases alias, traveling In under an transporting activity e.g. narcotics. Soko persons cious of — 8-9,109 low, attempting for law enforcement —which at S.Ct. at to evade 490 U.S. investigation by a rea further defendant was would warrant officers knew the example, the Bloom, $2,100 alias; officer.” paid in law enforcement an had sonable traveling under Sokolow, (quoting 490 U.S. carrying nearly F.2d at 1457 975 ticket and was cash for his omitted)). 1586) (citations 9, 109 at amount; twenty at S.Ct. and had traveled that twice 1512, per- Guzman, the the license exceeded minute retention of 1519 v. 864 F.2d States United omitted). length determine if Mr. Lam- (10th Cir.1988) (citations of time to missible such, any As we agents wanted for crimes. directly point here bert was not While —the Mr. Lambert's license the retention of whether Mr. Lambert conclude concerned with were not agents to unjustified the were able after lawfully operate vehicle or in a motor could weis Again, verify identity this occurred principle with it. of the issuing traffic citation—the a cases, i.e., immediately agents received his identi- after stop an individual's almost that traffic longer than neces- retained no license. should be fication request, accomplish purpose its sary for to government the above-cited requested also contends presumably 4. The apply. agents does grounds distinguishable that Mr. on the cases are to estab- driver's license in order Mr. Lambert's ultimately returned to him was Lambert's license identity possibly determine if he to lish his This, after the leave the they he did in fact traveling an alias. under was in luggage. obvious error immediately seized his accomplish after re- almost able to Lambert, eventually reasoning while attempt is Mr. They this ceiving did not the license. returned, was was after his license free to leave any outstanding based on the warrants check for while the the encounter free to terminate explanation nearly an hour. No for half license questioned him. retained his license why appears as to check, wait- in the record we are period with which of time though It is this long the record to run a ed so such, so, that occurred after As events concerned. to do it took that once decided indicates absolutely no have was detained Mr. Lambert very there were no time to determine a short de- bearing question whether he was of against on the outstanding Mr. Lambert. Un- warrants case, place. thirty in the first tained this we hold der the facts of 1070 contrast, Reid, 441, thus,

By in 448 at 100 suspicion did not amount to reasonable 2754, illegal a conduct. Id. all but one of set of circum- S.Ct. very large stances were held to “describe a The same conclusion was in reached Unit- travelers, category presumably innocent Ward, 1526, ed v. States 1528-30 subject virtually random

who would be (10th Cir.1992), only where the facts known the Court to conclude that as seizures were by way the law enforcement officials of a in foundation as there was this case little previously reliable informant were that justify could a seizure.” The court discount- paid defendant had for his ticket with $600 following shortly departure; factors: Reid cash ed the flew from a before his was trav- eling, drug-source city, one from a illegal drugs; early city source he arrived largest private reserved the room on the morning “when law enforcement activi- although train traveling he was alone. Final- diminished,” 441, ty is id. at 100 S.Ct. at Hall, ly, 616, in United v. States 621 2754; luggage had no and he other than a (10th Cir.1992), we concluded the seizure of bag. Implicitly, shoulder the Court also luggage5 supported by defendant’s was not itinerary found irrelevant the facts that the suspicion only when the informa- companion on the tickets to Reid and his tion known to the was the defendant only day in indicated a visit of one Ft. Laud- Arizona, a train in Flagstaff, boarded rather erdale, appeared that men both nervous Reno, Nevada; than her hometown of was during agent. their encounter Id. at traveling name; under her real traveling was 439, single argu- at 2753. The fact S.Ct. private compartment; alone paid had ably not consistent with innocent travel —that ticket; one-way cash for a provided appeared concealing Reid to be fact he callback agen- number of a California travel traveling with someone —was character- cy; traveling very suitcase; heavy with a “ unparticularized ized as an ‘inchoate and approached by nervous when ’ “hunch,” simply ... suspicion or too slender agents. again, finding Once our of no support reed to seizure this ease.” was based on the fact 441, (quoting Terry Id. at 100 S.Ct. everything known to prior the officers Ohio, the seizure of luggage defendant’s was “en- (1968)). L.Ed.2d 889 tirely consistent with innocent travel and therefore degree raise[d] minimal Similarly, in 975 F.2d at this suspicion.” Id. showing court held there was no of reason- justify suspicion investigative able to an de- It is obvious to that us the facts in tention of the defendant. The facts known to the support instant case do not finding the agents prior the to their seizure were that agents had suspicion reasonable to seize Mr. traveling city Bloom was alone from a source Lambert. The information known to illegal drugs private in a compart- train agents prior the to their seizure was Mr. ment; paid one-way cash for had his ticket (1) (2) alone; flying Lambert: had a one- shortly departure; kept lug- before his his purchased ticket he had with cash short gage, commonly “type by drug of a used ly departure before drug-source city; from a traffickers,” compartment; in inquired his of (3) (4) had piece checked one luggage; of and the train agents pres- attendant about the airport quickly nervous and left the train; appeared very ence on the and ner- retrieving after his All suitcase. of this is discounting vous and excited. Id. After the perfectly consistent with innocent behavior significance inquiry of the defendant’s about thus, very raises suspicion. little Mr. agent appearance, the and his “nervous” the Lambert’s appearance quick nervous de court remaining concluded the parture facts were from signifi the are of little entirely consistent with innocent travel and cance because none of any the Hall, Though 5. property Thus, luggage.” Hall involved the seizure of son’s 978 F.2d at 620-21. Ward, person and not of a involving as in Bloom and the court concluded that cases the de- recognized degree person court quantum directly that same or tention of a "[t]he were relevant in suspicion required analyzing person’s luggage. is to the detention of a person required per- detain a as is to detain a Id. at 621. which Lambert with with Mr. prior contact CAPITAL, airport. INC. See FAR WEST behavior compare his to Development Corp., at Hall, Steamboat F.2d Plaintiffs/Appellants, pressures and time the risks Given travel, uncommon it is not air with associated It is also airports. in people nervous to see who, for people to see experience common Dorothy A. Fleetwood TOWNE reason, airport ter- to leave desire whatever Defendants/Appellees. Corporation, Thus, Mr. they can. quickly as minals as created could have Lambert’s demeanor 93-4149. No. part of “hunch” than a nothing more suspicious. something Appeals, agents that Court United States Mr. Lam- note important to Finally, it is Tenth Circuit. but, alias traveling under an was not

bert 3, 1995. Feb. in his fact, plane reservations his had made luggage with his identified name short, there In and address. name correct to known suspicious facts objectively no Lam- of Mr. prior to their seizure entirely consistent

bert, only information but such, agents did As travel. innocent necessary suspicion the reasonable not have Mr. Lambert. justifiably seize

to agents seized Mr. prior to Amendment of the Fourth

violation agents be which the

hearing the statements court district were inconsistent.

lieved inconsistencies perceived on these

relied luggage properly seized

find the Accord legal search. subjected it to fruit of are tainted

ingly, those statements consid cannot be seizure and unlawful determining the reasonableness

ered Sun, Wong seizing bag. See we con at 416-17. Because known facts not sufficient

clude there were provide them with Lambert, it follows detain suspicion to have reasonable did judgment of the dis luggage.

seize his therefore, is, REVERSED.

trict REMANDED;

This case is guilty plea; to withdraw his allowed

shall be such fur- conduct court shall

and the district in accor- may just and as proceedings

ther opinion.

dance with this

McWILLIAMS, dissents. Judge,

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Robert Lambert

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Date Published: Feb 1, 1995

Citation: 46 F.3d 1064

Docket Number: 94-3117

Court Abbreviation: 10th Cir.