FIL ED U.S . C OUR T O F A PPE ALS ELE VEN TH CIRCUI T Jun e 1 6, 200 5 THO MAS K. KA

HN CLE RK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1525 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00073 -CR- CO- W UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us KEITH AUG USTUS JOHNSON, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the N o rt h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (June 16, 200 5)

Be fo re CA RN E S, H U L L and W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

K ei th Augus tus Joh nsonple ad ed gui lty to poss es sio n of

m ar ij uanaw iththe int en t t o di str ibu te it , in vio la tio n of 21 U . S. C. §§ 8 41( a) (1 ) an d ( b) (1 )( D ), and poss es sio n of

af ir earm dur ing and i n r el at ionto a dr ug tra ff ic kin g c ri m e, in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. § 92 4( c) (1 )( A ). Joh nson ’ s pl ea a gr ee m en t “ re se rv e[ d] his right sol ely

to appeal the adverse ruling on his pretrial Motion to Suppress which w as f ile d by him on M ar ch29, 200 4. ” ( R. 1:2 8:6 ). Joh nsone xe rc ise s th at r igh t now , appe al ing his c onvi ct ionon the ba sis that the dr ugs an d gun f

ound in his tr uc k and h is s ubse que nt c onf es sio ns w er e the pr oduc ts o f anil le ga l se ar ch .

I. On O ctober 20, 2003, T uscaloosa Coun ty Sherif f’ s Deputy

Thom as H am m onds w as on p atro l onI nte rs ta te 20/ 59 n ear T usc al oosa , A la ba m a. Whil e driving , H am

m onds saw an eighteen-whee l truck cross the white line on the far rig ht lan e o f th e in te rs ta te an d h itth e “ sl eep er b um ps ” o n t he sh ou ld er o f th e ro ad . H am m onds c ont inu ed

to fo llo wthe tr

uc k f or thr ee m ile s, obs er

vin g it c ro ss the w hit e lin e tw o m or e tim es . A ft er the thi rd ti m e, H am

m onds sto ppe d th e tr

uc k to de te rm ine if

the dr ive r w as too ti re d or int oxi cate d to c ont inu e dr ivi ng, and t o iss ue the dr ive r a tic ke t f

or vio la tin g A la . Co de § 32 -5 A -8 8( 1) , w hic h pr ohi bit s a driver fr om

unnecessarily

swer ving in and out of his lane.3

D ep uty H am m onds appr oa ch ed

the dr ive rs ’ sid e of

the tr uc k. H e as ke d th e dr iv er, wh om

he so on lea rn edwas J oh ns on , forhi s d riv er’s l ic en se an d l og bo ok . Looking in to the truck, H am m onds noticed that the curtains to th e sleeper area w er e dr awn, w hic h inhis e xpe ri en ce w as unu sua l i f the dr ive r w as the onl y pe rs on in the tr uc k. H am

m onds a ske d if

the re w as any one e lse in the tr uc k w ithJoh nson , an d Jo hnso n r es pond ed

that the re w as not . Fo r his sa fe ty , in ca se Joh nsonw as ly ing , D ep uty H am m onds a ske d hi m

to ste p ou t of

the tr uc k. O nc e John son w as out sid e, H am m onds a ske d hi m

w he re he ha d c om e fr om . Joh nsonsa id tha t he w as c om ing f ro m T oom suba , Mi ssi ssi ppi , which w as inconsis tent with the rec ording in the logbo ok. H am m onds then asked Jo hn so n i f he ha d a ny dru gs , weap on s, o r cas h o ve r $1 0,0 00 .00 in hi s t ru ck . John son sa id h e did

not . H am

m onds not ic ed

that Jo hnso n w as part ic ularl y ne rv ou s dur in g t hi s q ue st io n. He as ke d i f he co ul d s earc h J oh ns on ’s tru ck . John son ag re ed . D ep uty H am m onds the n w en t i n th e tr uc k and l ooke d be hin d th e curt ai n int o th e sle ep er

c om partm en t. H am

m onds ope ne d ac los et

of f to the sid e of

the sleeper ar ea and pushed aside som e quilts. T here, he found what appeare d to be a

“ br ic k” of

m ar ij uanaw ra

ppe d inc el lop hane . H am m onds im m ed ia te ly sto ppe d th e se ar chand c al le d inaK -9 uni t t o c he ck ins ide the tr

uc k. Whe n th e K -9 uni t4

ar ri ve d and a le rt ed

the of fi ce r that the re w er e dr

ugs in the tr

uc k, H am m onds pla ce d Jo hnso n un de r ar

re st. D ep uty H am m onds ha d anothe r of

fi ce r dr ive Joh nson ’ s tr

uc k to ane ar

by ai rp or t h an ga r to un de rg o aco m pl et e se arch of t he cab in an d t he tra il er. H am m onds dr ove Joh nsonto the a ir port. D ur ing the r ide to the a ir port, H am m onds tol d Jo hnso n th at

he c oul d ta lk t o an in ve sti ga tor a t the hangar, but that he didn ’ t want to talk to Johns on abou t what he had f ound . John son saidthat he w as w ill ing to co ope rate and tha t this w as the f ir st t im e he ha d do ne anythi ng lik e thi s. A t the a ir port, inv es tig at or s f

ound f our gun s inthe sle ep er

c om partm en t of the tr uc k a s w el l a s e igh te enpounds of m ar ij uana . I nve sti ga tor

S ev er n S an de rs of th e Tus cal oo sa Po li ce Dep art m en t re adJo hn so n h is Mi ran da rig ht s i n t he ha ng ar. John son orally

wa ived his Miranda rights and told Sanders that he had received the m arij uana and guns from “ a guy in Ariz ona.” H e w as delivering them to “ an unkn ow n pe rs on” in N ewY ork. A ft er w ar d, Joh nsonplanne d to r et ur n to A ri zo na to pick up another 200 po unds of m arij uana. J o h n s o n w a s p l a c e di n th e T u s c a l o o s ac o u n t y j a i l . H a mmo n d s g a v e h i m a ticket for sw erving between lanes in violation of A la. Code § 32-5A-88(1), which four day s later w as verified bef ore a m agistrate j udge.5

Me an w hil e, on O ct obe r 22, 200 3, Joh nsonw as a ga in i nte rv ie w ed by San de rs an d b y

an ag en t wi th th e Bu reau of Al co ho l, To ba cco , and Fir earm s. John son w as r em ind ed

of his Mi randar igh ts, w hic h he w ai ve d inw ri tin g. H e tol d Sanders and the A TF agent that he had picked up the drugs from a m an nam ed D w ay ne in A ri zo naand h ad

be entol d to de liv er

the m to a m anin N ewY ork. Ba se d onthe e vid en ce se iz ed f ro m his tr uc k and h is c onf

es sio ns t o S an de rs , John son w as ind ic te d f

or one c ount

of pos se ssi ng m ar ij uanaw iththe int en t t o dis tr ibu te it , and f

or one c ount

of pos se ssi ng a

f ir earm in the c our se of

dr ug tr af fi ck ing . Joh nsonm ove d to sup pr es s bo th the se ar chof his tr uc k and h is co nf es sio ns. T he m ag istrate j udge , in his tw el ve -p ag e re port and r ec om m en da tio n, denied Joh nson ’ s m otion to supp ress the evidence, and the district court adopt ed the m ag istrate ’ s r ep ort and r ec om m en da tio n inf

ull . John son the n pl ea de d gu ilty to both c ount s inthe ind ic tm en t. H ow ev er , he re se rv ed the r igh t t o a

ppe al the de nia l of

his m oti on t o su

ppr es s. II.

“ Adis tr ic t c ourt’ s r

uli ng o n am oti on t o su

ppr es s pr es en ts a

m ixe d qu es tio n of law an d fa ct .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Zapa ta , 18 0 F .3d12 37 , 12 40 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). W e ac ce pt the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing s of

f ac t t o be tr

ue , unl es s th ey

are sho w n to be c le ar ly e rr one ous, and w e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a ppl ic at ionof

the lawtoJohn so n a lso argue s th at th e tic ke t is su e d b y De puty Ha mmo nd s w a s inva lid

be c a us e it 1 was not ver ified by

a state ma g istrate within forty -eight hours of issuance , as re quired by Alabama law. Howe ver, a s we noted a bove, eve n without the ticket the traf fic stop of Johnson’s tr uc k w a s v a lid

be c a us e Ha mmo nd s o bs e rv e d Johns on se rv e in a

nd out of his lane thr e e tim e s, and wa s, theref

ore, w orried that J ohnson was drunk or aslee p. In addition, we agree with the mag istrate judg e that Alaba ma cour ts have he ld that the forty -eight hour verif

ication rule is a “ minist eria l require ment” for the police, a

nd does not g ive the def endant a substantive rig ht to invalidate his ticket. See, e.g ., L awr ence v. States, 601 So. 6 tho se f ac ts d e novo . I d. “ [A ] ll fa ct s are c onstru ed in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the pr ev ai lin g party

be low . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Be rv al di, 226 F . 3d 1 256, 126 2 ( 11th Ci r. 20 00 ). John son first contend s that Deputy Ham m onds ’ initial sto p of his truck la ck ed pr oba ble c au se and w as , the re fo re , unc onst itu tio na l. H e ar gue s th at he did not vio la te A la . Co de § 32 -5 A -8 8( 1) , the statut e that pr ohi bit s sw er vin g inand o ut of one ’ s lane w hil e dr ivi ng. I t do es not m atte r w he the r he did

or not . Whil e John son’ s vi olatio n of

the lane -s w er

vin g st at ute w as one r ea son that D ep uty Ham m onds stopp ed him , a

second reason was that H am m onds wa s concerned that John son was sleeping or into xicated. T his, we have held in alm ost ident ical ci rc um stanc es , is suf

fi ci en t j ust if

ic at ionto sto p am oto ri st. U nit ed S ta te s v. H ar

ri s, 928 F.3d 111 3, 1116–1 7 (11th Cir. 1991) (finding th at a lawenforce m ent officer w ho s awadr ive r sw er

ve int o th e em er ge nc y

lane tw ic e “ w as j ust if

ie d insto ppi ng and detaining [the defe ndant] to deter m ine whether he wa s drunk o r fa lling asleep at the w heel”). 12d 194, 195 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992) ( “[The ver ification rule] is a rule of acc ountability

for e ach tic ke t is su e d to a

law e nf or c e me nt a g e nc y . It do e s n ot g ive the de fe nd ant a su bs tanti ve ri g ht t o have the [t icket] verified w ithin 48 hours.”). 7 III . John son ne xt c ont en ds tha t D ep uty H am m onds de ta ine d hi m

a t the tr af

fi c st op foran un reas on ab le am ou nt of t im e, in vi ol at io n o f th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. He argues that the tim e betwe en the traff ic stop and when Ham

m onds rec eived John son’s consent to search the truck w as “ an uncons titutio nal prolong ed de te nt io n.”

“ U nde r T er

ry v. O hio , an of

fi ce r’ s in ve sti ga tio n of

atr af fi c sto p m ust be

‘ reasonably

relate d in scope to th e circ um stances which j ustified the int erfe rence in the f ir st p la ce . ’ ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Bo y ce , 351 F . 3d 1 102, 110 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) (quot ing T er

ry v. O hio , 392 U . S. 1, 20, 88 S . Ct . 186 8, 187 9 ( 1968 )) . T he sto p m ust be of “ lim ite d duratio n, ” an d m ay not la st “ an y lon ge r than ne ce ssary

to process the traff

ic violation unless th ere is articulable suspicio n of other illegal activity .” Id. (citation om itted). T he duration of the traffic stop “ m ust be lim ited to the ti m e ne ce ssary

to ef fe ct ua te the pur

pose of the sto p. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Purc el l, 236 F . 3d 1 274, 127 7 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) . H ow ev er , w he re the ini tia l tra ff ic stop is legal, the officer

has “ the dutyto investi gate suspicio us circum stances that th en [co m e] to h is att en ti on .” Harri s, 9 28 F.2dat 1 11 7.J ohnson also contends that ther e wa s insufficient evide nce that he conse nted to the 2 sear ch of his truc k. The mag istrate judg e found a s fac t that “Hammonds aske d [J ohnson] for permission to searc h the vehicle . [J ohnson] s aid that he c ould searc h.” (R.1:22:2). Other than noting that De puty

Hammonds’ ac count of the stop is the only evidenc e in the re cord that John so n c on se nte d to the se arc h, John so n o ff e rs no thi ng , in c lud inghis own te sti mony , to dis pute thi s a c c ount. He , th e re fo re , c ann ot s ho w that th e ma g ist rate jud g e ’s fi nd ingwa s c le arl y 8 InH ar ri s, the de fe ndant c ha lle nge d th e de te nti on f oll ow ing his tr af

fi c sto p fo r tw ic e sw er

vin g inand o ut o f the e m er ge nc y lane . D ur ing the tr af

fi c sto p, the law enforcem ent officer

who had observed the defendant swer ving had noticed that the de fe ndant: “ (1 ) [w as ] dr ivi ng a r en ta l c ar

w ithar es tr ic te d li ce nse ; ( 2) [w as] ‘ shaking ’ and acting ‘ extrem ely nervous’; and (3) gave conflicting respons es as to where he had been.” Id. W e held that “ [u] nder these circum stances, where [the office r] acted on rea sonable su spicion and onlydetained Har ris for a short pe ri od o f tim e . . . [ the de fe ndant] ’ s de te nti on d id n ot v iol at e the f ourth am en dm en t’ s pr ohi bit iona ga ins t unre as ona ble se iz ur es . ” I d. Inthi s c as e, D ep uty

H am m onds te sti fi ed

that: ( 1) Joh nson ’ s a cc ount of his la st s top w as dif

fe re nt f ro m the not at ionin his log book ; ( 2) the c urta ins to the sle ep er c ab w er e dr awn, w hic h w as unu sua l f or atr uc k dr ive r dr ivi ng a lon e; and (3 ) John son w as “ ex tr em el y ne rv ous” w he n a ske d w he the r he ha d il le ga l dr ugs in the tr uc k. L ike the H ar

ri s C ourt, w e fi nd tha t this is suf fi ci en t art ic ula

ble s u s p i c i o n o f

i l l e g a l a c t i v i t y f

o r H a mmo n d s t o d e t a i n J o h n s o n f o r as h o rtt i me be fo re he a ske d f

or , and r ec ei ve d, Joh nson ’ s c onse nt t o se ar chthe tr uc k. 2err oneous, espe cially g iven that “[t] he individual challeng ing the sear ch has the burden of proof and per suasion” with re g ard to the se arc h’s illeg ality . See United States v. Cooper , 133 F.3d 1394, 1398 (11th Cir. 1998). 9 IV. John son’ s th ir d c ont en tio n is that D ep uty H am m onds , w hil e tr an spor

tin g John son to the a ir

port hangar, “ de lib er at el y e lic ite d ta lki ng f

ro m [ him ] w ith out warn in gs of h is rig ht to co un se l.” Mi randaw ar

nin gs m ust pr ec ed e an y

“ cu sto dia l i nte rr ogatio n. ” G ar ci a v. Si ngl et ar y , 13 F . 3d 1 487, 148 9 ( 11th C ir . 199 4) ( quot ing Mi randav. A ri zo na , 384 U. S. 436, 444, 86 S. C t. 1602, 1612 (196 6)). In this case, there is no dispu te that John son w as in cu sto dy

w he n he m ad e the f

ir st i nc ri m inatin g st at em en t i n D ep uty Ham m on ds ’ ve hi cl e whi le Ham m on ds was t ran sp or ti ng hi m to th e ai rp or t h an ga r. The sole issue is whether John son was under interrogation at the tim e. InRh ode I sland v . I nni s, 446 U . S. 291 , 301 , 100 S . Ct . 168 2, 168 9–90 (1 979) , the S upr em e Co urt de fi ne d in te rr ogatio n a s “ expr es s qu es tio nin g” or “ an y w or ds o r ac tio ns o n th e part of pol ic e (o the r than th ose nor m al ly a tte ndant t o arr es t and custod y ) that police shoul d kno w are r easonably likely to elicit an inc ri m inatin g r es pons e fr om the sus pe ct . ” V oluntary

and s pont an eo us c om

m en ts ar e adm iss ibl e, e ve n if

giv ena ft er

Mi randar igh ts are a sse rt ed , a s lo ng a s th e10

co m m en ts w er e not

m ad e in r es pons e to g ove rn m en t qu es tio nin g. C an na dy v. Dugger, 931 F.2d 752, 754 (11t h Cir. 1991 ). John son w as not

be ing “ int er

ro ga te d” w he n he m ad e the state m en t i n D ep uty H am m onds ’ c ar . H am

m onds te sti fi ed

that, dur ing the tr an spor

t, he tol d John son “ that he c oul d ta lk t o an in ve sti ga tor w he n w e got

the re ; tha t I didn’ t w an t to t al k to him

about w ha t w e ha d f

ound . ” ( R. 2:1 1) . Joh nson the n m ad e the inc ri m inatin g st at em en t at i ssu e. H am m onds ’ c om

m en t t o Jo hnso n w as not re as ona bly li ke ly to el ic it aninc ri m inatin g r es pons e fr om Joh nson . I n f

ac t, the op po si te is tru e. V. John son’s f

inal contentio n is that his confession to Investigator Sanders w as u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l b e c au s e h e d i dn o tu n d e r s t a n dh i s M i r a n d ar i g h t s . S p e c i f i c a l l y, John son se iz es on S an de rs ’ te sti m ony that the pur

pose of the se co nd i nte rr ogatio n on October 22, 2003 was to “ m ake sure [ John son] understood his rights.” Ac cording to J ohns on, this proves th at Sanders w as unsure that Joh nson had unde rs too d hi s r igh ts a s e xpl ai ne d or al ly dur ing the f

ir st i nte rr ogatio n a t the airport hangar.11

John son’ s arg um en t i gnor es the m or e sa lie nt p ar t of I nve sti ga tor

S an de rs ’ te sti m ony . T he f

oll ow ing e xc hange be tw ee n th e m ag istrate j udge and S an de rs is ins tr uc tiv e: Court: You didn’t say

this, but I want to m ake sure it’ s clear. When y ou’r e talking abou t a lawy er, did y ou also tell [Joh nson ] on October 20th , that if y ou cannot afford a lawy er that one w ouldbe appointed fo r him by the Co urt. Sanders: T hat’ s correc t. Y es, sir. Co urt: I n othe r w or ds, did y ou g o th ro ugh the e nti re Mi randar igh ts? Sande rs : Y es , I did . I ha d it on a c ar d.

. . . . Co urt: W as the re any

doubt i n y our

m ind , on O ct obe r 20th [ at the airport hangar] , when y ou inform ed [Johnso n] of his rights, whether or not he und erstood it? ” Sande rs : N o. N o do ubt

a t a ll. I m ean, he und er sto od 1 00 p er ce nt. (R.2 :5 3) . Sande rs te sti fi ed

that he r ea d Jo hnso n hi s M ir an dar igh ts. S an de rs a lso te sti fi ed that the re w as “ no d oubt ” that Jo hnso n “ unde rs too d 10 0 pe rc en t” his Mi randar igh ts. T his te sti m ony w as und isp ute d by

Joh nson . A ft er

he ar ing a ll the te sti m ony a t the sup pr es sio n he ar ing , the m ag istrate j udge f ound that Jo hnso n

“ w ai ve d hi s r igh ts and t old S an de rs that he r ec ei ve d th e m ar ij uanaand g uns ‘ fr om a guy in A ri zo na . ’ ” ( R. 1:2 2:3 ). Abse nt any e vid en ce to the c ontrary , w e cannot say that the m ag istrate j udge ’ s f ind ing w as c le ar ly

e rr one ous. AF FIRMED .