United States v. Whitaker

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN W. BROOMES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This case comes before the court on Defendant's motion to suppress. (Doc. 16.) The motion has been fully briefed and the court held an evidentiary hearing on September 23, 2021. (Docs. 17, 20, 22, 23.) Defendant's motion to suppress is DENIED for the reasons herein.

I. Facts

The court finds the following facts from the evidence presented at the hearing. On December 15, 2020, at approximately 2:40 a.m. in the morning, Salina Police Officer Michael Baker was on patrol and driving on N. 9^th Street in Salina, Kansas. Officer Baker has been a police officer for eight years and is a certified canine officer. At the time of the stop, Officer Baker had his canine, Karma, with him in his patrol vehicle. When he was driving northbound on N. 9^th, he was approaching the I-70 overpass.^[1] There are four lanes of traffic on N. 9^th, two lanes for each direction, and, in the northbound lanes there is a stoplight at the onramp to the highway. There is also a stoplight on N. 9^th after a vehicle drives under the overpass. That stoplight is immediately

2

past the westbound exit ramp from I-70. This exit ramp also faces a stop light for vehicles coming off I-70.

Upon approaching the stoplight on the south side of the overpass, Officer Baker observed a vehicle on the westbound I-70 exit ramp. At that time, Baker was approximately 700 feet from the exit ramp and approaching at approximately 25-30 miles per hour. Officer Baker testified that he observed the vehicle fail to stop behind the white line at the stop light, which was red for vehicles approaching the intersection from the westbound exit ramp. The vehicle remained stopped for several seconds. The vehicle then inched forward and slowly made a right turn onto N. 9^th Street. Officer Baker was then directly behind the vehicle and further observed the vehicle travel left of the dashed line separating the two northbound lanes on N. 9^th Street. The vehicle then corrected by slowly moving back into the right lane. At this point, Officer Baker suspected that the driver might be impaired because he observed the driver fail to stop prior to the stop line, linger at the intersection for several seconds before turning right onto N. 9^th Street even though there was no traffic to which the driver was required to yield, and then fail to stay in his lane of traffic. The vehicle then took a right turn onto Diamond Drive. After turning right on Diamond, the vehicle proceeded to drive down the center of the street although there are no lines indicating the lanes of traffic for this road. At this point, Officer Baker decided to stop the vehicle because of the violations and his belief that the driver might be impaired.

Officer Baker testified that he suspected the driver might be impaired because it was late at night and soon after most bars closed for the evening, the driver failed to stop before the stop line on the exit ramp, lingered unnecessarily before executing a right turn onto N. 9^th Street, failed to maintain his lane on N. 9^th, and drove down the center of Diamond. He further testified that these violations were common with impaired drivers. Upon stopping the vehicle, Officer Baker

3

approached the vehicle on the passenger side. The stop was recorded on Officer Baker's body camera. Officer Baker told Defendant, who was the driver and sole occupant, that he stopped him because he was driving “in the middle lanes” when he came off the exit ramp and turned onto N. 9^th. He then asked Defendant if he was drunk and also asked if he had been drinking and driving. Defendant responded that he was not and had not. Officer Baker then asked for his driver's license and insurance. Defendant could not locate his insurance and Baker told him to keep looking while he went back to his patrol car.

Officer Baker further testified that his interaction with Defendant dispelled any belief that Defendant was impaired. Baker testified that the following led him to believe Defendant was not impaired: Defendant's speech was not slurred; there was no smell of alcohol; and his eyes were not blurry. Baker planned to write a warning ticket for a failure to maintain a lane. Ultimately, Defendant could not find the proof of insurance for the vehicle. Officer Cook, another officer with the Salina Police Department, arrived at the scene and Baker told him to write a ticket for no proof of insurance. As Officer Cook wrote the ticket, Baker ran Karma around the vehicle to perform a free air sniff. (Doc. 17-5 at 2.) Karma alerted and the vehicle was searched. The search revealed a glass pipe with suspected methamphetamine residue in the cup holder and small pieces of marijuana on the floor. (Id.) Defendant was placed under arrest and his person was searched. This led to the discovery of a baggie containing methamphetamine in his pocket. (Id.)

Defendant was charged by indictment with one count of possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). (Doc. 1.) Defendant filed a motion to suppress the methamphetamine seized in the search on the basis that the stop was unreasonable in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Defendant further argued that the duration of the stop was unreasonable and challenged Karma's qualifications. At the hearing and in his reply brief,

4

Defendant notified the court that he was withdrawing his challenges to the duration of the stop and Karma's qualifications.^[2] (Doc. 23 at 1.) Therefore, the only remaining issue is whether the initial stop was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

II. Analysis

The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. The Supreme Court has liberally interpreted “seizures” to encompass routine traffic stops, “even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief.” See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979). An initial traffic stop is justified at its inception if “an officer has (1) probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred, or (2) a reasonable articulable suspicion that a particular motorist has violated any of the traffic or equipment regulations of the jurisdiction.” United States v. Winder, 557 F.3d 1129, 1134 (10th Cir. 2009). “Reasonable suspicion requires that an officer provide ‘some minimal level of objective justification.'” United States v. Vercher, 358 F.3d 1257, 1261 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing I.N.S. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 217 (1984)). This requires only “a showing considerably less than preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 1263 (citing Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000)). The court's standard for evaluating a traffic stop is objective, rather than subjective. United States v. Winder, 557 F.3d 1129, 1135 (10th Cir. 2009). Once an officer observes a traffic violation, “a Terry stop is objectively justified, regardless of the detaining officer's subjective motives.” Id. (quotation omitted).

In this case, the government argues that Officer Baker had...