## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 3656 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D ANIEL L. B OHMAN, D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 3:10- cr-00038

—Wi ll iam M. Co nley, Chief Ju dge .
A RG UE D A PRI L 13, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UNE 28, 2012

Befo re P OSNER, W OO D , a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Judge. T h e q u es tio n p re se n te d i n th is ap p ea l is w h et h er th e p o l i c e m ay st op a ve h icle on ly because i t e m er ged fro m a si te susp ected ofdrug acti vi ty. A pp el l ant Dani elBohm an r aise d thi s quest i on i n a m o ti o n to su ppr es s ev i den ce di sc o ve r ed w he n the carhe was d rivi ng o n A ugust 1 8, 20 09, was sto pp ed lea vin g w h at tu rn ed ou t t o b e a nac tiv e m et h lab . H is m oti on was deni ed aftera hear i ng co nd ucted by a m agi s-2 N o. 10

- 3656 trate j ud ge an d review by a district j ud ge on a rep ort and rec om m endati on. Bohm an pre ser ved hi s obj ecti on to the a dvers e rul i ng thr ough a co nd i ti onalgui l ty ple a pu rs uant to Fed. R. Cri m . P. 11( a) ( 2)
. So w e c onsi der th e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d b e l o w. The i nvest i gat i on be gan with i nfo rm ati on pro vi ded by a m an nam ed Ed Ol m ste d w ho was a rre st ed i n M ar ath o n Co unty, W i sc o ns i n fo rpo ss essinga n a nhy dr o us am m oni a t an k and w anted to “s ni tch in exchange f or consi derat i on o n hi s char ges . ” U nite d States v. B artt el t, N o. 10

- cr- 38- w m c, 20 10 W L 33632 47, at* 1 (W
. D. W i s. J uly12 , 20 10)
. Ol m ste d’s offerpi qued t h e int er esto f Sg t. B ri an Kings l ey ofthe nearby Linco l n County, W i sconsin Sher i ff’ s Depart m ent b ecause Kings l ey cre dit ed an oth er trust ed inv estigator’s end orsem en t of O lm sted ’s re l i ability. Ol m ste d m et w i th Kings l ey and tol d him that he sa w kno w n m eth c oo k J ack Bartt el t br ew m eth th re e t im es in t h e p as t t w o m on th s a t a h u n t i n g c ab in on “ B ig Tony’ s” proper ty. Ol m ste d i denti fi ed a rural f or ty- acr e par celo w ned by Ton y T hor enso n i n a pl at b o o ka nd a l s o t o l d King s l e y tha t( 1 ) h e h a d s e e n a n anhydrous am m oni a t ank a t the cab in w i thi n the l astweek o rs o ; ( 2) tha t a l o ck ed cabl e bl o ck ed th e dr i ve l ea di ng to the Thor enso n cabin; and ( 3) thatBart tel t dro ve a gr een M er cury Grand M ar quis
. K ingsley’s 17-plus years w ith th e d ep artm en t, his 40-orso m eth l ab bust s, and hi s t ra i ni ng a n d exper i ence qu ali fy him as a veteran m eth i nv est ig a t o r . W ith a sniff he can dist i nguish b etween househo l d am m oni a ( often d ilu te d in c lea n er s) an d a n h yd ro u s am m on ia (u se d legit i-N o. 10

- 3656 3

m ate l y a s a fer ti l i zerbut al so i n c oo ki ng m eth) bec ause o fthe l at te r ’ s no ti ce ab l y mor e pung en t o do ra nd the burni ng se nsati on i t ca uses i n hi s m ou th and nos e. B as ed on h is e x p er ien c e, K in gs ley th ou gh t h e w ou ld fi nd evi dence of a m eth l ab at the cabi n i n one of three pha se s be ca us e m eth c o o k s do no t te nd to st o r e anhy dr o us amm onia f o rmor e th ana wee ko rs o : ( 1) pr ec o o k i ng ( gathering i ngre die nts, para phernal i a) ; ( 2) co oking; o r ( 3) post- coo ki ng ( gl ass w ar e, fi l ter s, sta rt er fl u id cans, li th ium battery strip s, an d so on). Sg t. K in gs ley d ro ve to th e T h or en so n p r o p er ty sh or tly afterhis evening i nter vi ew with Ol m ste d, ar ri vi ng at ab ou t 1 1 p .m . A n o t h e r o ffice r ro d e a lon g b u t o n ly K i ngsl ey tes ti fi ed at the s up press i on hea ring. Kings ley tes ti fi ed that he f ound a l ock ed cabl e bl ock i ng a dri vewa y j us ta s Ol mst e d d e s c r i bed. Ab o ut3 0 0 y a r ds th r o ug h th e w o o ds, he s aw a c ab i n a nd a l i g ht

. As h e p re p ar ed h is s u rv eilla n c e g ea r, K in gs ley ina d ve rt en tly b ee p ed h is h or n . Ve h i c l e l i gh ts ca m e o n n ea r th e c ab in and star ted dow n the dri ve tow ard the cabl ed gat e. K i n gs ley quick l y b acke d his squad carwestw ar d aw ay fr o m the dr i ve way wi thhi s l i ght s o ff

. K i ng sl eys aw the v e hi c l e s t o p a tthe c ab l e f o rab o utt we nty t o thi r ty secon d s and then back u p t h e d r ivew ay to the cabin’s vi cini ty
. Ki ng sl eyt es ti fi ed th atthe v eh i cl e’s move m en t caused hi m to be “very su rp ri sed” a nd se em ed unusual to him becau se he th o u g ht that i f som eon e w ere ch ec k i ngo n a c arhonk th eywoul d ha ve c o m e o nt o the ro ad and possib ly a l i ttl e f ar therr atherthan j ust st o ppi nga t th e g ate. Abo utfi ve min ut es l at er, a fte rhe had repos i ti oned hi s c ar t o the e asto fthe dri veway, K in gs ley ob s e r v e d a se c on d inc id en t o f a ve h icle4 N o. 10

- 3656 dr i vingup to the c ab l e. Th is t i m e, l i k e be f o r e, the vehicl e sto pp ed at the cabl e, but unli ke ear l i er, i t e mer g e d o uto fthe dr i v e wa y ab o utt we nty s e c o nd s l ate r, dri vi ng to w ar d K i ngsl ey’ s pos i ti on. Kings l ey fl i pped o n hi s po l i ce l i g ht s an d pul l ed i n fr o nt of th e approachi ng car, w hi ch sto pp ed i m m edi ate l y. K i ngsl ey fra n kly co n c ed ed t h a t h e d id n otob se rv e a n y t ra ffic vi ol ati ons bef or e the st op. A t s om e point i t be cam e cl ear th at th e s to p p ed ca r w as n ota gr ee n G ra n d M ar q u is but w as i nstea d a re dd i sh- m ar oo n Ch evr olet B er ett a coupe. Kings l ey did notte sti fy that the v ehi cl e that cam e down the dr ive w ay ei therti m e a pp ear ed to be a Gr an d M ar qui s, or ev entha t i t appe ar ed to b e th e sa m e v eh icle bo th tim es . K in gs le y s a i d t h at all h e c ou ld tel labo ut the carbe for e h e stopped i t was thati t was a ve hi cl e with two headl i ghts. Ki ng sl eya nd hi s co l l ea g ue g o t o uto fthe i rc ara nd w al ked to w ar d the s topped vehi cl e. A s s oo n as K i ngsl ey coul d see i nto the c ar, he r eco gni zed the dri ver as Daniel B o h ma n b u td i d n o tr e c o g n i z e th e pa s s e n g e r . B o th c o mpli ed w i th Kings l ey’ s r equest to ste p out o fthe Be re tt a. A s King sl ey questi oned the passenge r, wh o i denti fi ed hi mse l fa s J a k e Ba r t t e l t, h e s mel l e d the di s t i nc t i ve odoro fanhydro us am m oni a. Bart tel t cl ai m ed he had been bearhunti ng, but that sounded un l i kel y t o K i ngsl ey be cause ofBa r tt el t’ s at ti r e ( sh o r ts , t enni s sh o es , a nd so ck s, b utno s hi r t) a nd the tim e ofni g ht

. Ki ng sl eyc o ncl uded tha t he ha d unc o ve r ed a m eth c o o ks i te
. Ba ckup ar ri ved and pol i ce pla ced Bohm an and Bar tt elt i nto differ ent s quad car s. Kings l ey ask ed Bohm an about a m eth c o o ka nd Bo hm ana ns w ered affi r m at i ve l y a nd i nd i cate d that Bar tte l t was co oking.N o. 10

- 3656 5 A se ar c h of th e c ab in(au t h o r i z ed by a su b se q u en tly i ssued warra nt, bas ed i n parto n i nfo rm ati on l earned du r i ngthe ve hi cl e s t o p) c o nfi r med tha ti twa s i nd e e d a l ab , b utthe pa r ti cul ar s ar e no t releva ntt o the i ss ue bef or e us. Bohm an does n’tdi spute thata j ustifiab l e s top o fhi s ca rwoul d pe r m i t hi s r emova l from the c ar, a nd p ro p er ly so

. E. g. , Sm i t h v
. Bal l St at eU ni v. , 29 5 F
. 3d 763, 76 9 (7t h Cir

. 20 02) ( offi cer s m ay or der dri ver s t o exit th ei rv eh i cl es dur i ngi nv es ti g at o r y s to ps)
. And he e ss en ti al l y co nc ede s th at o nc e Ki ng sl ey sn i ffed an hy dr o us am m onia, to say n o t hin g of B ohm an ’s adm issi on, there w as probabl e ca use t o sea rch the c abi n. Instea d, Bohm an m ai ntai ns t h at i fthe sto p w as unreas onabl e, then anythi ng o btained du ring the sto p shoul d be s up press ed an d the c ab i n s ea r chw ou ld be fr ui t fr o m tha t po i so no us tr ee. T he di s t r i c tc o ur tf o un d tha tKi ng s l e y h a d r e asonab l e s uspici on that th er e was o r re centl y had be en m et h co ok in g a t t h e c ab in, U nite d State s v. B artt el t, N o. 10

- cr- 38- w m c, 20 10 W L 3 363307, at* 5 ( W
. D. W i s. A ug. 23 , 2010 ) , but i t no ted thatfi nd i ng r eas onabl e s uspici on f or st op p in g t h e c a r w as a “c los er ca ll” a n d a “d eb at ab le poi nt,” id. at *5-* 7. Y et th e cou rt found that Olm sted ’s corrobo r a ted i nform ation an d the “su sp ici ou s beh avior” i n r es po ns e to the h orn h o nkj us ti fi ed m o vingthe suspi ci on r ega rdi ng the carfro m “be yond a hunch t o at l eas t m i ni m alsuspi ci on. ” Id. at* 6- * 7. Alt erna ti ve l y, the co ur t f o und tha t ev eni fthe s to p was unr ea so nabl e, the det er m i na ti o n’ s cl o se ne ss j us ti fi ed co nc l udi ngtha t an y er ro r w as m er ely n eg lige n t a n d th at K in g s l e y ac te d in goo d fa i th

— th ati s, hi s co nduc t d id not j us ti fy e xc l us i o n. Id. at * 7.6 N o. 10

- 3656 A m er e suspi ci on of i l l ega l acti vi ty at a parti cul arp lace i s n o t e n o u g h t o t r a n s fe r th a t s u s p i c i o n t o a ny o ne who lea ve s t h at p r o p e r ty
. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , 17 0 F
. 3d 708 , 7 20 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 9)
. The F o ur thAm en dm en t al l ows offi cer s to “st op and b ri efl y detai n a pers on f or in ve st iga tiv e p u rp os es ift h e o ffice r h as a re as on ab le suspi ci on supp or ted by ar ti cul abl e f acts that c ri m i nal a c t i v i t y ‘ mayb e a f o o t
. ’ ” U nite d S t at e s v. So kol ow , 490 U
. S. 1, 7 ( 1989 ) ( quoti ng Ter ry v. O hio , 392 U .S. 1, 21 (19 68 )). Th is re aso nabl eness s ta nd ar d typi cal l y r equi re s a se t o ff acts that w e ca n m eas ure aga i n st an o bj ecti ve sta nd ar d such as “pro babl e ca use o r a l ess st ringent tes t” s uch as re aso n ab le s u sp icio n . D ela w a re v. P rou se, 44 0 U.S
. 64 8, 65 4 & n.11 ( 1979 ) (i nt e r n a l footnote s om itted ). In th ose circumst an ce s wher e we do no t i ns i st o n “s o m e qua ntum ofi nd i vi du al i zed suspi ci on, ” we re l y o n other safeguar ds t o assur e that the r eas onabl e e xpectati on o f p r i v a c y is n ot“s u bj ec t t o th e d isc re tio n of th e o fficia l in the fi el d.” Id. at 654- 55 ( quoti ng C a m a ra v . M un . Co urt, 38 7 U.S. 5 23 , 5 32 ( 19 67 ) )
. F o ri ns ta nc e, a n o ffi ce rwi tha w ar ra nt to se ar ch a plac e m ay stop anyo ne l eaving tha t p lac e w ith ou t a d d itio n al in d ivid u aliz ed su sp ic ion, see M ich iga n v . Sum m ers , 452 U
. S. 6 9 2 , 7 0 2-03 & n.16 ( 1981 ), but a m er e s uspici on o fi l l ega lact i vi ty ab ou t a pl ace, w i th ou t m or e, i s no t e nough to j usti fy s toppi ng ev er yon e e m er gin g fro m th at p ro p er ty , s e eJohns on , 17 0 F
. 3d at 720. W hen S gt
. Kings l ey sto pp ed Bohm an’ s Ber ett a, ev er yth i ngi nf o r m an t Ol m st ed sa i d ha d c he ck ed o ut, b utthe gov er nm ent doe s no t a tte m pt to j usti fy the ve hi cl e s top o n the b asi s that King sl ey had accum ula ted probabl e ca use tha tthe c ab i n ho us e d a m eth c o o k

. Ki ng s l e y s t i l lh a d aN o. 10

- 3656 7 few cr i ti calthi ngs t o confi rm : the pre sence ofan anhydrous am m oni a t ank, suspect ed coo k J ake Ba rt tel t, and, ofco urse , hi s gre en Grand M ar quis
. S o w e a gr ee w i th the di str i c t j ud ge that K i ngsl ey needed som ethi ng ext ra to m ove the j usti fi cati on f orthe st op fro m “a hunch to atl eas t m i ni m alsuspi ci on. ” 2 010 W L 33633 07, at *7. The r es po ns e to the ho r n h o nkdo es n’ t m o ve the su sp ici on o n th e B eretta be yon d a hu nc h bu t for a d if

fer ent r eas on than Bohm an ar gues. Bohm an’ s a l ternati ve, i nno ce n te x p l a n a t i o n f o rth e r e a c t i o n t o th e h o r n h o nk ( th e equi va l en t o fa doorb el lr i ngi n thi s r ur ale nv i r o nm en t) does n’t u nd ercu t the reason ablen ess of K ingsley’s surpri se d r eacti on o r hi s be l i efthatthe behavi orwas “unusual. ” S e e, e . g. , U nite d States v. B askin , 40 1 F
. 3d 788, 79 3 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) (be ha vi or “ su sc ept ibl e to a n inno ce nt ex p lan at ion w h en isola te d from its c o n te x t m ay st ill giv e ris e t o rea so n ab le s u sp icio n w h en co n sid er ed in ligh t of all of th e fa c to rs ”); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fi as ch e, 520 F. 3d 694, 69 8 ( 7th Ci r. 2 008) ( see m i ngl y innocent behavi or sugge ste d “som ethi ng was r ott en in Denm ar k when [a ] carsped up a bi t”)
. Yet as su rp ris i ng as thi s be havi or m ay have been, i t doe s no t o n i ts own le n d a suspi ci on of som eth ing il legal or w rong as to the B eretta. I t d idn ’t gi ve K i ngsl ey anythi ng to add to hi s e xi sting suspi ci on th atthe ac tiv i tya t th e cabin mi g hti nv o l ve a n a nhy dr o us am m oni a t ank, J ake Bart tel t, and a g re en Grand M ar quis
. So w h en K in gs ley st op p ed th e c ar h e d id so b ec au se it em er ged fro m a f or ty- acr e t ra ct c ontaini ng a suspecte d m eth c oo k s i te. I n Jo hns on , we concl ud ed that pol i ce a re notenti tl ed to de ta i n j us t an y o ne wh o w al k s o uto fa n a par tment8 N o. 10

- 3656 gener al l y s uspected ofhos ting i l l ega lact ivi ty. 17 0 F
. 3d at 7 19

- 20. The pol i ce di d no t su spe cta ny o ne i n partic u lar of cr im in a l ac tiv ity
. Id. Y etth e p olic e s till detai ned the fi rs t per son w ho happened to w alk o ut o f th e s u sp ec te d a p a rt m en t. Id. at 71 1. B oh m an ’s c as e is i n d i s t i n g u i s h ab l e ( a n d , s u r p r i s i n g l y, th e g o v e r n men t i g no r es i t i n i ts b r i efing). L i k e th e o ffi ce r s i n Johns on , Ki ng sl eys us pec te d th at a par ti cul arpl ac e ho us ed dr ug ac ti vi ty
. And l i k e i n Johns on , he sto pp ed the fi rs t perso n th at em er ge d . Th e p rin c i p al d iffer en c e b et w ee n th is c a s e a nd Johns on i s a n i m m ateri alo ne: i n thi s ca se, S g t. Ki ng sl eyc o m po r te d hi m sel funobj ec ti o nabl y a nd profess i onal l y ( att em pti ng to co nd uct co ver t s urve i l l ance fro m publi c pro perty) as o pp ose d to Johns on , wh i ch i nv o l ve d “ k no cka nd t al k” te chni que s th ato pen ed th e offic er s’ c on d u c t t o c rit icis m . S e e id
. at 72 1 (E va n s, J., conc ur r i ng ) ( s e e ds o fb a d s e a r c h “ s o wn whe n the p o l i ce d ecid ed to use th e ‘knock an d talk’ ” sho rtcu t). The go ver nm ent’ s a tt em pt to j usti fy the st op bas ed on rea s ona ble susp ici on d esp ite the lack of par t i cu l ar su spi ci o n abou t the c ara ctua l l y s to pped i g no r es tha t th e S up r e me Co ur th a s o nly a l l o we d s uc h s t o ps i n na rr ow ci r cumst an ce s. N amel y, whenthe po l i ce ha ve a war r an t to s ea r cha ho us e, the de te nt i o n o fi ndi vi dual s f o und l eaving that house i s co nsti tuti onal l y r eas onabl e be

cause of“the natur e o fthe ar ti cul abl e a nd i nd i vi du al i zed suspi ci on o n w hi ch the pol i ce b ase the detenti on o f th e occ u p an t of a ho m e su bj ec t to a se a r c h w ar ra n t.” Su m m ers , 45 2 U.S
. at70 3. The i m pen d ing warr ant- authori z e d s e a rc h of th e h om e m ea n s t h at th e d et en tio n, although a m eani ngful re str ai nt on l iber ty, “w as sure l y l essN o. 10

- 3656 9

This c ase s eem s unu sual because, as w e note d earli er, 1 King s l ey did no tobs er ve the Ber et t a n avi gat e the r oad i n a (co n tin u ed ...) i ntrusi ve than the sea rch i tse l f, ” i d. at 701, and “r epres ents onl y a n i ncre m en tal i ntrusi on o n pers onall iber ty, ” i d. at 703. But i n thi s case ther e was no w ar ra nt and the re as o n in g of Su m m ers can’ t be st re tched to co vera case l i k e th i s whi chi nv o l ve s, a t m o st, r ea so nabl e su spi ci o n. M or eov er, ther e i s a l so n o sugge sti on that the Ber ett a p os ed an y d an ge r to an yo n e. U n lik e t h e o ffice r in U nited Sta tes v. B rew er, Sgt. Kings l ey didn’thearo r re cei ve re port s o fan o ngoing dangersuch a s gunshots. 56 1 F
. 3d 67 6, 6 78 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)
. In B rew er, as an office r p re pared to r es po nd to a rep o r t o fa fi g hta t a no to r i o us a par tment com p lex, he heard s om eth ing tha t sou nd ed l ike gun fi re c om in g from th e c o m p l e x . Id. at 67 7. W ith inm in u te s, a di spa tc hert o l d hi m tha t sh o ts ha d b ee n fi r ed an d a s he dr o v e t o wa r d the c o mpl e x v i a i t s o nly a c c e s s p o i nta c ar p as se d h im goin g t h e o th er d i r e c tio n . Id. On those f ac ts , v ery di ffer en t fr o m thi s ca se, we f o und tha t “the ca se i s o n th e l i ne be twe en r ea so nabl e su spi cion an d pu re hunch” bu t g i ven the unusual ci rcum sta nces

— th e single acces s p oint, th e tim ing of th e car’s de p artu re fro m the c om ple x re l ate d to the s hots fi re d, the l ate ness ofthe hour and l ack oftr affi c, a n d im port antl y, the si tuation’s da ng erou s nat ure

— w e fo u n d th at rea so n ab le su sp icio n j u st ified th e s to p . Id. at 678. Th ose are d if

ferenc es th atmatt er . The s to p i n thi s ca se was o n the o th ers i de o fthe l i ne ; i t was b as ed o n a hun ch

. 110 N o. 10

- 3656

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 cu ri o u s (le t a lo n e i lle g a l) m a n n er . C f. U ni t ed Sta t es v. Bu rt on , 441 F .3 d 5 0 9 , 5 1 2 -1 3 (7 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) (d r u g -h o u se ti p , d e fe n d a n t ’s em ergence f rom adjacent house, and posit ion ass um ed i n st reet c aus i ng c ar s to s werve was “m i ni m al s us pi c i on” ne ede d f or “a m ini m al st op”). K ingsl ey s im ply st opp ed a car he k n ew nothing abou t other than it s em ergence from a suspect ed m et h co o k sit e. C

f
. U ni t ed Sta tes v . B ul l ock, 632 F. 3d 1004, 1013 (7th Ci r. 20 11 ) ( c onfi rm ed t i p pl us “be havi or c ons i s t en twith a d ru g co u ri er o r d ist ri b u to r” ); U n i te d S tat es v. B ooker, 579 F .3d 8 3 5 , 8 3 7 -3 9 (7 th C ir
. 2 0 0 9 ) (in fo rm a n t po in te d o u t c a r); U n i te d S tat es v. R odriguez , 831 F. 2d 162, 165 ( 7th C ir . 19 87) (reason a b l e t o su sp ect v isitor from Flo rid a ca m e to In d ian a to furth er d ru g d istribu tion c on sp iracy a fter seein g h im m eet w ith s u s p e c t e d c o n s p i r a c y me mbe r s )
. An d a s t o p r e s t i n g o n t he m er e em er g en ce fr om a s us pec t ed dr ug s i t e vi ol at es the pr ohibi t i on aga i ns ts t ops bas ed on n othi ng m or e thange ner a liz ed su sp ic io n s. SeeJohnso n , 170 F. 3d at 719- 20. I n c er ta i n c i r cumstances , the F o ur thAm en dm en t pe r mi t s c h e c k p o i n t s t o p s a s r e a s o n ab l e i n t r u s i o n s o n i nd ivid u als ’ r i g h ts bu t o n ly if th e p olic e s at isfy a b alan cingt es t se t f o r thi n M i c h. Dep’ to f S t at ePo l i c ev . Sitz , 49 6 U
. S. 44 4, 45 0 ( 1990 )
. But pol i ce c annot si m plyp u ll o ve ra l lv eh i cl es on a ce r ta i n r o ad i n h o pes o ffi ndi ng vio lat or s. Se eCi ty of

Indi anap ol i s v. Edm ond, 53 1 U.S
. 32 , 35

- 36 , 4 8 ( ch ec k po i ntf o r“ th e g en eral inter es t i n c r i m e co ntr o l ” vi o l at ed th e F o ur thAm en dm en t)
. Ofc o ur se , the gov er nm ent doe sn’ t j usti fy the st op ofB ohm an’ s Ber ett a as a per m i ssibl e che ckpoi nt. But the pu rpor ted bas i s o f the s top

— a su spi ci o n ab o ut a pl ac e an d so m e su rpr i sing behavi ora few m i nutes e ar l i er

— w oul d esse nti al l y a l l owN o. 10

- 3656 11 the g ove rnm ent t o setup c h eckpoi nt st ops o utsi de suspected drug producti on or dist ributi on si tes to d et ect “or dinar y c ri m i nalwrongdoi ng. ” Id. at 41. Pe r hap s r ec o g ni zingi ts s ha k y po si ti o n, the g o ve r nm ent a rgues in the a lte rnati ve that eve n i fKings l ey l acke d rea sonab l e s uspici on t o jus tify the st op, that e r r o rwa s me r e l y n e g l i g e nta nd di d n o twa r r a nts up p ression. Th e d istri ct c o u rt cha racterized K ingsley’s d e c i s i o n a s c l o s e a n d th a ta n y e r r o ru n d e rth e s e c i r c u msta nces w as “no m or e than negl i gence ” be cause K i ng sley m ad e “ a g oo d fait h at te m p t t o” inv es tig at e law fu lly un d er Herringv. U nited Sta tes , 55 5 U .S
. 135, 143 (2009 ). 2010 W L 3 363307, at* 7. W e don’ t doubt K i ngsl ey’ s g oo d fait h effo rt s. B u t t h e g ov e r n m en t d oe sn ’t p oin t t o a sin gle case wh er e the go od f ai th exce pti on a pp l i ed to a la c k o f r e a s o n ab l e s u s p i ci o n a n d we d o n ’ tth i n ki td o e s . As we re cogni zed i n another c on text, “r em oving thi s s or t o f p oli ce m iscond uc t from the am bit ofth e exc lusionary ru le w ou ld h av e s ign ifica n t i m p lica tio n s: it w ou ld elim in at e th e ru le’s d et er re n t effec t on ” un re as on a b l e s eiz u re s. U nited Sta tes v. B urg a rd, 675 F
. 3d 1029 , 10 35 ( 7th C ir. 20 12 ), pe t i t i on f

orcert. f

i l e d ( M ay 31, 20 12) ( N o. 11

- 10 61 3)
. Co nt r ary tha n t o the di stri ctc o ur t’ s co nc l us i o n, sto pp i ng a carj ust t o id en tify i ts occupants i s del iber ate enough to j usti fy s up press i on wh en “there i s nei ther probabl e ca u se to bel i eve norr eas onabl e s uspici on that th e ca ri s be i ngdr i ve n c o nt r ary t o t he l aws g o ve r ni ng the o perat i on o fm oto r vehi cl es orthatei therthe c aro r any o fi ts occu p an ts i s s ubj ect to sei zure o r detenti on inco n n ec tio n w ith th e v io lat ion of an y ot h er ap p lica b le l aw . ” P rou se, 4 4 0 U
. S
. a t6 5 0
. A l th o u g h th e c i r c u m-12 N o. 10

- 3656 st an ce s m ayha ve s uppo r te d a g en er als us pi ci o n abo ut the Ber ett a, bec ause K i ngsl ey l acke d that “ qua n tu m o f i nd i vi du al i zed , a rt i cul abl e s uspici on, ” id. at6 62 , the e v i de nc e fr o m t he s t o p mus tb e s up pr e s s e d. The pa r ti es di spu te whethe rBo hm an had a s uffi ci en t i nter es t in the cabi n ar ea to al l ow him to se ek supp re ssio n of t h e e vid en c e d isc ov er ed th er e, se e R aka s v. Il li nois , 43 9 U .S. 12 8 (1 97 8); Alde r m an v. U ni t e d S ta tes , 394 U
. S. 16 5 (1 96 9), an d th e e x te n t o f th e t ain t t h a t sh ou ld res u lt f r o m th e s to p , se e B rown v. Ill inois , 4 22 U. S
. 5 90 ( 1975); Wo ng Su n v . U nited Sta tes , 37 1 U.S
. 47 1 (1963)
. The di str i ctc o ur t di d not n ee d t o r ea chthe se a r g um en ts a nd the m agi str ate j ud ge f ocuse d the e vi denti ary hea ring o n the s top’ s v al i dity. W e l eave the is su es ofthe suffi ci ency o fBo hm an ’ s i nt er es t i n the c ab i n a nd the e xt en t o fthe taint f orthe dis tr i ct c ourtto address i n the fi rs t instance i fBohm an withdraws hi s guil ty ple a a nd se eks to s up pr e s s e v i de nc e a c qu i r e d a tthe c ab i n o n r e man d. W e R EV ERSE t h e d istri ct cou rt’s den ialof B ohm an ’s mot i o n t o s up pr e s s a nd R EMA ND f orfurtherp ro c eedi ngs co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

6- 28- 12