# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 30 55

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Mar ia no Vale nc ia Men do za

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 30 62

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Jo se Fran ci sc o Gar za To va r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 5, 2 01 2
Fil ed : Se pt em

be r 10 , 20 12

Befo re W OLLMAN an d COLLOTON, Ci rcui t Judg es , an d HICKEY, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

M a r i an o Vale nc ia Men do za an d Jo se Fran ci sc o Garza Tov ar en te re d

co nd it io na l gu il ty pl eas to po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e 50 0 gr am s or m or e of

m et ha m ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) an d (b )(1 )(A). On ap pe al

, th ey ch al le ng e th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of th ei r m ot io ns to su pp res s ev id en ce. W e 2

affi rm

.

I.

On Decem

be r 21

, 20 10

, Offi cer St ep ha n i e S wart z of th e Des Mo in es Po li ce Dep art m en t was on ro ut in e pa tro l whe n sh e ov erh eard a rad io req ue st fro m ag en ts of

th e Dru g Enfo rcem en t Adm in is tra ti on

. The ag en ts wan te d a m ark ed un it of th e po li ce

de pa rtment to st op a bl ack Vol vo se da n th at was un de r su rv ei ll an ce. Swart z sa w th e

ve hi cl e, pu ll ed be hi nd it

, an d m ad e a tra ffi c st op

. In ex pl ai ni ng th e ba si s fo r th e st op , Swart z te st ifi ed :

The re was wha t ap pe ared to be a pa pe r ta g up in th e le ft- ha nd co rn er of

th e rear win do w, I was pr et ty co nf id en t th at it was n’t an I o w a t a g , I

co ul dn ’t read th e st at e o f o r i g i n , a nd I ha d ha d two rece nt cas es th at I

The Hon or ab le Su sa n O. Hick ey , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1

Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, s it ti ng by des ig na ti on

.

The Hon or ab le Jo hn A. Ja rv ey , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e So ut he rn 2

Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-2

-ha d de al t wit h wit hi n th e pa st si x m on th s whe re pe op le ha d ei th er fo rg ed

ta gs fo r th em se lv es or b o ug ht frau du le nt ta gs fro m ot he r pe op le to be
di sp la y ed in th e v eh ic le

.

Swart z was ap pr ox im at el y fif te en to twen ty feet be hi nd th e ve hi cl e whe n sh e

ob se rv ed th e ta g an d de ci de d to st op th e car. Sh e was un fam il ia r wit h te m po rary ta gs

fro m St at es ot he r th an Io wa an d Ill in oi s, an d sh e was u n a b le to read th e na m e of a

St at e of or ig in on th e ta g. Swa r t z t h o ug ht th e ta g lo ok ed im pr op er an d lo ok ed li ke

so m et hi ng a pe rs on co ul d m ak e wit h a p r i n t er. Sh e al so no ti ced th at th e ta g’s

ex pi rat io n da te was writ te n in la rg e, ha nd writ te n bl oc k nu m be rs

. Sh e th ou g h t t h i s

was su sp ic io us , b ecau se bl oc k n um be rin g c ou ld be us ed to alt er an ex pi rat io n da te

.

Swart z ap pr oa ch ed th e car an d as ke d th e dr iv er, Tov ar, fo r hi s dr iv er’s li cen se

. Tov ar sa id he di d no t ha ve a li cen se , an d Swart z as ke d Tov ar an d hi s p a s s e n g e r , Men do za, to st ep ou t of th e ve hi cl e. Swart z as ke d Tov ar if th ere was an y th in g in th e

car t ha t s he “ ne ed ed to be co nc ern ed ab ou t,” t o wh ic h To va r rep li ed , “ no , g o a he ad

an d lo ok .” W hi le Swart z is s u e d Tov ar a ci ta ti on fo r dr iv in g wit ho ut a li cen se ,

an ot he r of

fic er s earc he d t he ve hi cl e an d fo un d c on tro ll ed su bs ta nc es

.

A gr an d jury ch arg ed Tov ar an d Men do za wit h po ss es si on wit h in te nt to

di st rib ut e 50 0 gr am s or m or e of m et ha m ph et am in e. Bo th de fen da nt s m ov ed to

su pp res s th e ev id en ce ob ta in ed fro m th e se arch of th e ve hi cl e. Not in g th at th e ve hi cl e

di sp la y ed a va lid te m

por ary ta g fro m an ot he r St at e, th ey arg ue d th at Swart z’s de ci si on

to st op th e car was no t su pp or te d by reas on ab le su sp ic io n or pr ob ab le cau se

. Bec au se

t h e st op was un la wfu l, th ey arg ue d, Tov ar’s co ns en t to se arch th e ve hi cl e an d hi s

su bs eq ue nt st at em en ts to law en fo rcem en t wer e th e fru it s o f an il le ga l s ei zu re.

The di st ric t co ur t, rel y in g on ou r de ci si on in Uni te d St at es v. Sa nc he z , 57 2 F.3 d

47 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ), de ni ed th e m ot i o n s t o s u pp res s. The co ur t fo un d th at Swart z

“ cred ib ly te st ifi ed th at sh e co ul d no t read th e st at e of or ig in of th e te m po rary ta g an d

-3

-th at sh e ge nu in el y be li ev ed ba se d on he r ex pe r i e n ce th at th e ta g’s si m pl e co lo r

sc he m e m ad e it ap p e a r l i k e so m et hi ng th at co ul d be fo rg ed .” The co ur t de em ed

Sa nc he z in di st in gu is ha bl e an d co nc lu de d th at Swart z ha d reas on ab le su sp i c i o n t o

m ak e th e tr affi c st op

.

Tov ar an d Men do za e n t e red co nd it io na l gu il ty pl eas , res erv in g th e rig ht to

ap pe al th e de ni al of th ei r m ot io ns to su pp res s. On ap pe al

, Tov ar ar g u e s t h a t th e

di st ric t co ur t m ad e cl earl y erro ne ou s fact ua l fin di ng s reg ard in g Swart z’s cred ib il it y ,

an d bo th de fen da nt s arg ue t h a t S wart z’s se iz ur e of th e car vi ol at ed th e Fo ur th

Am en dm en t.

II.

The Fo ur th Am en dm en t pr oh ib it s “ un reas on ab le se arch es an d se iz ur es .” A

tra ffi c st op co ns ti tu te s a s ei zu re o f th e v eh ic le ’s oc cu pa nt s. Bren dl in v. Ca li fo rn ia

, 55 1 U.S. 24 9, 25 5- 57 (2 00 7)

. To be r e a so na bl e, th e st op m us t be su pp or te d by at

le as t “ reas on a b l e s u s p i ci on to be li ev e th at cri m in al act iv it y m ay be afo ot .” Uni te d

St at es v. Arvi

zu , 53 4 U.S. 26 6, 27 3 (2 00 2) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

. W e rev ie w

th e di st ric t cou rt’s fact ua l fin di ng s for c le ar error an d it s leg al co nc lu si on s de no vo

. Orn el as v. Uni te d S ta te s , 51 7 U.S. 6 90 , 69 9 (1 99 6)

.

A.

W e se e no cl ear erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s. Tov ar arg ue s th at

Swart z’s te st im on y was in co ns is te nt wit h he r rep or t, in whi ch Swart z st at ed th at sh e

“ co ul d no t read ” th e pa pe r in th e ve hi cl e’s rear win do w. Tov ar m ai nt ai ns th at Swart z

“ m od ifi ed he r st or y ” whe n sh e te st ifi ed th at sh e “ co ul dn ’t real ly read an y pa rt of th e

ta g well .” He al so arg ue s th at Sw a r t z’s te st im on y reg ard in g th e ta g’s co lo rin g an d

bl oc k nu m

be rs is in co ns is te nt wit h he r rep or t, whi ch di d no t m en ti on th es e fact s.

Swart z’s te st im on y is no t in te rn a l l y in co ns is te nt or faci al ly im pl au si bl e. W hi le

-4

-do cu m en ts or ob jecti ve ev id en ce m ay co nt rad ic t a wit ne ss ’s st or y an d ren de r he r

te st im on y in cred ib le

, And er so n v. Ci ty of Be ss emer Ci ty

, N.C.

, 47 0 U.S. 56 4, 57 5
(1 98 5)

, th ere is no su ch co nt rad ic ti on he re. Swart z’s te st im on y pr ov id ed ad di ti on al

de ta il s reg ard in g he r ob se rv at io ns , bu t el ab or at io n is no t a co nt rad ic ti on th at co m pe ls

a fi nd in g t ha t t he wit ne ss was i nc red ib le

.

To v ar al so arg ue s th at th e co ur t cl earl y erre d in fin di ng th at Swart z be li e v e d

th at th e ta g’s “ si m

pl e co lo r sc he m e” m ad e it lo ok li ke so m et hi ng th at co ul d be fo rg ed

. Thi s fin di ng , ho wev er, was a reas on ab le in fere nc e fro m Swart z’s te st im on y

. Swart z

te st ifi ed th at Io wa’s te m

po rary t ag s in cl ud e a “ red ki nd of swi rly sy m bo l,” a nd th at

th e ta g in th is cas e di d no t feat ur e th e co lo rs of an Io wa te m po rary ta g. Sh e te st ifi ed

th at sh e sa w “ bl ue ba rs of so m e ki nd ” on th e ta g, bu t sh e di d no t reco gn iz e th e co lo rs ,

an d s he ob se rv ed th at sh e “ co ul dn ’t ve rif y th at it was a le gi t i mat e t a g a n d no t

so m et hi n g t h a t so m eo ne ha d m ad e on th ei r pr in te r.” In li gh t of th is te st im on y , we

can no t s ay

th at th e d is tri ct co ur t’s fi nd in g i s cl earl y erro ne ou s.

Tov ar ne xt co nt en ds th at Swart z was “ le ss th an fo rth co m in g” ab ou t he r

ex pe rie nc e wit h fo rg ed ta gs

. He po in t s to cro ss -ex am in at io n in whi ch Swart z

ack no wled ge d te ll in g an in ve st ig at or th at sh e “ of te n” en c ou nt ered frau du le nt

te m po rary ta gs du rin g tra ffi c st op s, ev en th ou gh th e go ve rn m en t pr od uc ed rep or ts of

on ly t wo su ch in ci de nt s at th e he ari ng . Swartz als o t es ti fie d, h owe ve r, th at sh e ha s

st op pe d a nu m

be r of cars wit h al te red ta gs , bu t th at no t al l of th os e in ci de nt s res ul te d

in ci ta ti on s or arre st s. The di st ric t co ur t th us reas on a b l y in ferr ed th at Swart z ha d

rece nt ex pe rie nc e wit h frau du le nt ta gs , an d th at sh e “ ge nu in el y be li ev ed ba se d on he r

ex pe rie nc e” th at th e ta g co ul d ha ve be en fo rg ed

. The re is no cl ear erro r on th is po in t.

Fi na ll y , To va r arg ue s th at Swart z’s te st im on y th at sh e d id no t lo ok at th e ta g

whi le ap pr oa ch in g th e ve hi cl e is “ so im pl au si bl e on it s face ” t h a t t he di st ric t co ur t

cl earl y erre d in cred it in g an y of Swart z’s te st im o n y. S wart z ex pl ai ne d th at sh e di d

no t lo ok at th e ta g be cau se he r “ at te nt io n [was ] on th e dr iv er an d an y ot he r oc cu pa nt s

-5

-of th e ve hi cl e fo r sa fet y reas on s.” Sh e el ab or at ed th at sh e was “ [t]ry in g to m ak e su re

th at no bo dy ha s a weap on , no bo dy is fle ei ng th e ve hi cl e, no bo dy is m ak in g an y

fu rti ve m ov em en ts in th e fro nt se at or th e ba ck se at

, as cert ai n ho w m an y pa ss en ge rs

th ere are, et cet era.” Esp eci al ly i n vi ew of th e fact th at Swart z kn ew th e oc cu pa nt s

were un de r in ve st ig at io n by th e Dru g Enfo rcem en t Adm in is tra ti on , th is te st im on y is

no t i nh eren tl y

im pl au si bl e.

B.

The di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at th is cas e is co nt ro ll ed by ou r de ci si on in

Sa nc he z

. In th at cas e, a Neb ras k a s t at e tro op er ob se rv ed a m in iv an wit ho ut a fro nt

or rear li cen se pl at e, bu t wit h a pi ece of pa pe r affi xe d whe re a rear li cen se pl at e wou ld

ha ve be en di sp la y ed

. Sa nc he z , 57 2 F.3 d at 47 6. As th e tro op er pu rs ue d th e m in iv an

an d ap pr oa ch ed it fro m th e rear , he co ul d read th ree li ne s of te xt on th e pa pe r. Id

. at

47 6- 77

. At th e bo tt om of th e pa pe r, in m uc h sm al le r type, were th e wor ds “ Ariz on a

Tem po rary Reg is tra ti on Pl at e.” Id

. The la w en fo rcem en t of fic er, ho wev er, co ul d no t

r e ad th es e wor ds fro m hi s va nt ag e po in t, an d he co ul d no t di sc ern th e na m e of a n y

is su in g St at e. Id

. at 47 7. “ Su sp ect in g th at th e pa p e r w a s no t an of fic ia l do cu m en t,

he de ci de d to st op th e m in iv an to in ve st ig at e.” Id

. The tro op er ev en tu al ly ob ta in ed

co ns en t to se arch th e m in iv an an d fo un d co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es

. Id

. The de fen da nt s

m ov ed to su pp res s th e ev id en ce ob ta in ed fro m th e se arch

. Id

. The y arg ue d th at th e pi ece of pa pe r was a va li d Ariz on a te m po rary pl at e, an d be cau se it was cl earl y vi si bl e

fro m th e ou ts id e of th e ve hi cl e, th e of fic er sh ou ld ha ve reco gn iz ed th at it was an

of fic ia l do cu men t

. I

d

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io ns to su pp res s, an d th e

de fen da nt was c on vi ct ed

.

On app eal

, we no te d th at Neb ras ka la w ge ne ral ly req ui res ve hi cl es to di sp la y

fro nt an d rear li cen se pl at es , bu t m ak es an ex cep ti on fo r rece nt ly pu rch as ed ve hi cl es , whi ch m ay di sp la y two t e mp o r a ry “ In Tran si t” st ic ke rs

. Id

. at 47 8. Neb ras ka la w

al so pr ov id es an ex cep ti on fo r o u t -o f-s ta te ve hi cl es , whi ch m us t co m pl y wit h th e

-6

-req ui rem en ts of th e juri sd ic ti on in whi ch th ey are reg is te red

. Id

. Eve n as su m in g th at

th e ve hi cl e in Sa nc he

z pr op erl y di sp la y ed reg is tra ti on fro m an ot he r juri sd ic ti on , we

he ld th at th e tra ffi c st op was la wfu l. Id

. W e th ou gh t it was “ ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le

fo r [th e tro op er] t o ex pe ct th at th e na m e of th e is su in g juri sd ic ti on wou ld ap pe ar

co ns pi cu ou sl y on th e face of an of fic ia l do cu m en t, an d to in ve st ig at e fu rth er if a na m e

was no t vi si bl e.” Id

. at 47 9. “ [B]ecau se th e pr in ti ng on th e pa pe r affi xe d to th e rear

was to o s m al l t o re ad in it s en ti ret y , and no is su in g ju ris di ct io n was id en ti fia bl e, he

reas on ab ly su sp ect ed th at th e pa pe r was no t an of fic ia l do cu m en t th at co m

pl ie d wit h

th e li cen si ng req ui rem en ts of a no th er St at e.” Id

.

Io wa la w ge ne ral ly req ui res ve hi cl es to di sp la y fro nt an d rear li cen se pl at es

. Io wa Co de § 32 1.3 7( 1)

. Owner s of rece nt l y pu rch as ed ve hi cl es , ho wev er, m ay

di sp la y a “ reg is tra ti on ap pl ie d fo r” card on th e rear of th e ve hi cl e fo r fo rty-fiv e da y s.

Id

. § 32 1.2 5. Io wa al so m ak es ex cep ti on fo r no nr es id en ts ’ ve hi cl es , whi ch ne ed on ly

di sp la y th e reg is tra ti on req ui red by the no nr es id en t’s jur is di ct io n. Id

. § 3 21 .53

.

The de te rm in at io n of whe th er reas on ab le su sp ic io n ex is te d “ is no t to be m ad e

wit h th e vi si on of hi nd si gh t, bu t in st ead by lo ok in g at wha t th e of f i c e r r e as on ab ly

kn ew at th e ti m e.” Sa nc he z , 57 2 F.3 d at 47 8 (in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d)

. At th e ti m e

of th e tra ffi c st op , Swart z ob se rv ed wha t app eare d to be a p ap er t ag in th e ve hi cl e’s

rear win do w. Sh e was co nf id en t th at it was no t an Io wa te m po rary ta g

. D e sp it e

ob se rv in g it fro m a di st an ce of fif te en to twen ty fee t, s h e w a s u n a b l e to id en ti fy an

is su in g St at e. Her su sp ic io ns a l s o w e r e a ro us ed by th e la rg e, ha nd writ te n bl oc k

nu m be rs

. In he r ex pe rie nc e, de al ers writ e ex pi rat io n da te s wit h a si ng le st ro ke

, an d

bl oc k n um

be rs co ul d b e u se d t o alt er a d at e wri tt en in th is m an ne r. Giv en th e ta g’s

ov eral l ap pe aran ce, Swart z th ou gh t it lo ok ed li ke so m et h i n g a p ers on co ul d ha ve

crea te d on a pr in te r. Co ns id ered in li gh t of Swart z’s ex pe rie nc e wit h fal si fie d or

frau du le nt ta gs , th es e ob se rv at io ns pr ov id ed he r wit h a pa rti cu la riz ed an d ob jecti ve

ba si s to su sp ect th at th e ta g w a s n o t a va li d reg is tra ti on do cu m en t. W e th eref or e

-7

-co nc lu de th at S w art z ha d reas on ab le su sp ic io n to be li ev e th at th e ve hi cl e di d no t

di sp la y va li d p ro of

of v eh ic le reg is tra ti on , as re qu ire d b y Iowa law.

Men d o z a an d Tov ar arg ue th at th is cas e is di st in gu is ha bl e fro m Sa nc he z

be cau se , un li ke Swart z, th e tro op er in Sa nc h e z a t t e mp t ed to read th e ta g as he

ap pr oa ch ed th e ve hi cl e on fo ot

, bu t he st il l di d no t se e th e na m e of an y is su in g St at e.

Se e 57 2 F.3d at 47 7. W e di sa gr ee. The is su e in Sa nc he z was wh et he r th e tro op er’s

“ de ci si on to st op th e m in iv an ” was la wfu l. Id

. at 47 8 (em ph as is ad de d) . Al th ou gh

we no te d th e tro op er’s po st -s to p effo rt to in sp ect th e ta g in Sa nc he z , Swart z’s fai lu re

to do so ha s no be ari ng on whe th er sh e ha d reas on ab le su sp ic io n to m ak e th e tra ffi c

st op in th e fir st pl ace

. M e n do za an d Tov ar do no t arg ue th at Swart z un reas on ab ly

pr ol on ge d or ex ceed ed th e sc op e of th e st op by fai li ng im m ed ia te ly to in sp ect th e ta g. Cf . Uni te d S ta te s v. Ho ll in s , 68 5 F .3d 70 3, 7 06 -0 7 (8 th Cir . 20 12 ).

Men do za an d Tov ar al so em ph as iz e ou r ob se rv at io n in Sa nc he z th at it was

“ ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le fo r [th e of f i c e r ] to ex pe ct th at th e na m e of th e is su in g juri sd ic ti on wou ld ap pe ar co ns pi cu ou sl y on th e face of an of fic ia l do cu m en t, an d to

in ve st ig at e fu rth er if a na m e was n o t v i s i b l e

. ” 57 2 F.3 d at 47 9. The y arg ue th at

Swart z co ul d no t reas on ab ly ha ve th e sa m e ex pe ct at io n in th is cas e, b e c a u s e e ve n

Io wa’s te m

po rary ta gs do no t “ co ns pi cu ou sl y ” di sp la y th e na m e of th e is su in g St at e.

In es se nc e, th e ap pe ll an ts su gg es t th at if it is ge ne ra l l y im po ss ib le fo r of

fic ers to

ve rif y th e va li di ty of te m

po rary ta gs wit ho ut st op pi ng a ve hi cl e, th en th e pr es en ce of

th at or di na ry fact can no t am ou nt to reas on ab le su sp ic io n. The reco rd he re, ho wev er,

in cl ud es m or e th an an as se rti on by Swart z th at sh e co ul d no t ve rif y th e va li di ty of a

ta g th at ap pe ared on it s face to be le g i t i mat e

. Sh e ga ve pa rti cu la riz ed reas on s why

sh e su sp ect ed th at th is pa rti cu la r ta g m ay ha ve be en frau du le nt ly crea te d on a pr in te r

rat he r th an is su ed by an of fic ia l au th or it y . Th e sh owi ng of reas on ab le su sp ic io n in

th is cas e d oe s n ot de pe nd on th e so rt o f ex pe ct at io n m en ti on ed in Sa nc he z

.

-8

-Men do za su gg es ts th at th e of fic er in Sa nc he

z ha d gr eat er gr ou nd s fo r su sp ic io n

be cau se he sa w on l y a “ pi ece of pa pe r” at ta ch ed to th e ve hi cl e, whi le Swart z,

acco rd in g to Men do z a , “k n e w t he do cu m en t ta pe d to th e rear win do w was a

te m po rary reg is tra ti on ta g.” As th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d, ho wev er, Swart z sa w o n l y

“ wha t app eare d to be a pa pe r ta g” po st ed in th e rea r win do w. W he n ask ed whe th er

sh e co ul d see th at th e ve hi cl e ha d “ so m e type of tem po rary ta g,” Swart z st at ed on ly

th at sh e “ co ul d se e th at it ha d a pi ece of pa pe r.” The reco rd do es no t es ta bl is h th at

Swart z k ne w th e d oc um en t was a le gi ti m at e te m po rary regi st rat io n t ag

.

Thi s ca se is th eref

or e d is ti ng ui sh ab le fro m Uni te d S ta te s v. Wils on , 20 5 F.3d

72 0 (4 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (en ba nc ), whe re an of fic er at te m

pt ed to jus ti fy h i s st op of a

v eh ic le ba se d si m

pl y on hi s in ab il it y to read th e ex pi rat io n da te on a te m po rary t a g

du e to da rk ne ss an d sm al l pr in t. In W il so n , t he of

fic er “ ad m it te d th at he ne ve r sa w

an y th i n g il le ga l ab ou t th e ta g or th e op erat io n of th e car,” te st ifi ed th at “ no th in g

ap pe ared il le ga l ab ou t th e te mpo rary ta g,” an d ack no wled ge d th at he ha d “ no

su sp ic io n a t a l l ” t h at th e dr iv er was op erat in g an un reg is te red ve hi cl e or ot he rwis e

vi ol at in g th e la w. Id

. at 72 3. “ Si m pl y pu t, he sa w no th in g wro ng , an d he su sp ect ed

no th in g,” so th ere was no reas on ab le su sp ic io n. Id

. at 7 2 4

. The m or e an al og ou s

au th or it y is Uni te d St at es v. Edg er to n , 43 8 F.3 d 10 43 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 0 6 )

, w h e r e a n

of fic er la wfu ll y st op pe d a ve hi cl e no t m erel y be cau se he co ul d no t read a te m po rary

ta g, bu t b e c a u s e “h e co ul d no t de te rm in e whe th er th e do cu m en t po st ed in th e rear

win do w was, i n fa ct , a tem po rary tag .” Id

. at 10 47

.

* * *

Bec au se th e tra ffi c st op di d no t vi o l at e th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t, th e ev id en ce

o b t a in ed fro m th e se arch of th e ve hi cl e an d Tov ar’s su bs eq ue nt st at em en ts to l a w

en fo rcem en t were no t th e fru it s of a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. The jud gm en ts of th e

di st ric t co ur t ar e aff

irmed.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-