Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-14-02204/USCOURTS-ca10-14-02204-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Albuquerque
Appellee
Thomas W. Cunningham
Appellant
Chris Luttrell
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS W. CUNNINGHAM,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, NEW 

MEXICO; ALBUQUERQUE POLICE 

OFFICER, CHRIS LUTTRELL, In his 

individual capacity or personal capacity,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-2204

(D. New Mexico)

(D.C. No. 1:13-CV-00977-LH-LAM)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before, HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously 

that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore ordered submitted 

without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under 

the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, 

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 

32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

June 24, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-2204 Document: 01019449412 Date Filed: 06/24/2015 Page: 1 
2 

Plaintiff Thomas W. Cunningham, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Albuquerque and Officer 

Chris Luttrell alleging that Luttrell violated his rights under the United States and New 

Mexico Constitutions. The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico 

dismissed most of the claims as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), 

because of Plaintiff’s conviction on drug charges arising out of the same episode. Those 

dismissals are not at issue on appeal. The sole issue on appeal concerns Plaintiff’s Fourth 

Amendment claim—namely, whether the district court properly ruled on summary 

judgment that Luttrell had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle in which Plaintiff was 

a passenger. We affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND 

On the night of April 4, 2012, Plaintiff was in the passenger seat of a truck parked 

by a dumpster behind a pizza parlor in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Officer Luttrell was 

patrolling the area when he observed the truck. The area was known to Luttrell for a high 

level of drug-trafficking and prostitution. Two people were sitting in the truck and 

another person was standing next to the passenger door, which was open. According to 

Luttrell’s affidavit, he observed a hand-to-hand transaction between Plaintiff and the man 

standing outside the truck. That man then departed and Plaintiff “ma[d]e a furtive 

movement, looking back and forth, picking up a black drawstring bag and placing it next 

to his left leg inside the vehicle.” R., Vol. I at 97. Luttrell left his vehicle and 

approached the truck with a flashlight. He saw a bag of marijuana and a clear glass pipe 

Appellate Case: 14-2204 Document: 01019449412 Date Filed: 06/24/2015 Page: 2 
3 

that were visible at the top of the black bag. He told Plaintiff to exit the truck and took 

the bag. The driver told Luttrell that the bag belonged to Plaintiff. A search of the bag 

also revealed a syringe, a needle, a spoon, and a small baggie of heroin. Luttrell arrested 

Plaintiff for possession of heroin and marijuana. 

Plaintiff’s version of events is rather different. According to Plaintiff, a man 

approached the truck and talked to him for some time. The man told Plaintiff that he had 

forgotten his change in the pizza parlor and asked him to hold the pizza while he went 

back inside. When the man returned, he stood there looking for his change until he saw a 

police officer, whereupon he said he had warrants, grabbed his pizza, and left. The 

officer then parked his car behind the truck, blocking it in. Plaintiff never possessed the 

black bag or any of its contents, nor did he make any furtive movements. 

II. DISCUSSION 

“We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, reviewing the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Clark v. Edmunds, 

513 F.3d 1219, 1221–22 (10th Cir. 2008) (brackets and internal quotation marks 

omitted). To justify an investigatory stop, “the officer must have reasonable suspicion to 

believe that criminal activity may be afoot.” United States v. Simpson, 609 F.3d 1140, 

1146 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he existence of objectively 

reasonable suspicion of illegal activity does not depend upon any one factor, but on the 

totality of the circumstances.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Appellate Case: 14-2204 Document: 01019449412 Date Filed: 06/24/2015 Page: 3 
4 

We agree with the district court that Officer Luttrell had reasonable suspicion to 

stop Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff disputes the veracity of much of Luttrell’s account, it is 

undisputed that Luttrell saw him exchange something through the window of a truck and 

the person outside the truck departed when he spotted the officer. The transaction was in 

an out-of-the-way spot in a high-crime area at night. See United States v. Paulette, 

457 F.3d 601, 606 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he officers had a reasonable suspicion that 

Paulette was engaged in criminal activity based upon his hand movements consistent with 

drug-dealing activity, efforts to evade the police upon noticing them, and presence in a 

high crime area”); United States v. Lopez-Garcia, 565 F.3d 1306, 1313‒14 (11th Cir. 

2009) (similar). 

Plaintiff appears to argue that fingerprint and DNA evidence and statements from 

the driver of the truck would show that the bag did not belong to him. But on appeal he 

challenges only the initial stop. The lawfulness of the stop does not depend on his 

possession of the bag, but on whether the observations by the officer at the time of the 

stop supported reasonable suspicion. He also argues that the district court erred in 

dismissing his state-law claims. But his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation made no mention of those claims; rather, they focused on the evidence 

relating to reasonable suspicion and guilt. See Sealock v. Colorado, 218 F.3d 1205, 1209 

(10th Cir. 2000) (appellant is barred from raising issues not raised in objections to 

magistrate judge’s recommendation). 

Appellate Case: 14-2204 Document: 01019449412 Date Filed: 06/24/2015 Page: 4 
5 

We AFFIRM the district court’s decision. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

 Harris L Hartz 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 14-2204 Document: 01019449412 Date Filed: 06/24/2015 Page: 5