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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 4- 21 00

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

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.

Geo ffre y Sco tt Gaffn ey

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 Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa , W at erl oo

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 12 , 20 15
Fil ed : J un e 1 6, 2 01 5

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BYE, BEAM, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Geo ffre y Sco tt Gaffn ey co nd it io na ll y pl ed gu il ty to on e co un t of po ss es si on
wit h i nt en t to di st rib ut e 50 0 gra m 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. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d 84 1 (b )(1 )(A). He ap pe al s th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n to

su pp res s ev id en ce se iz ed fro m hi s car. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91

, th is co ur t af

fir m s.I.

Offi cer Alb ert Bo vy was st op pe d at a red li gh t. Dire ct ly in fro nt of hi m , he sa w
Gaffn ey ’s veh ic le ap pr oa ch in g th e in te rs ect io n fro m th e op po si te di rect io n. As t he

li gh t ch an ge d to gr een , th e ve hi cl e, wit ho ut sl owi ng , m ov ed th ro ug h th e in te rs ect io n.
The off ic er m ad e a u -tu rn to fol lo w it . Gaffn ey im m ed ia te ly brak ed ha rd an d m ad e

a ri gh t t ur n. Th e o ffi cer t ur ne d o n h is li gh ts . The v eh ic le st op pe d.

Offi cer Bo vy ap pr oa ch ed an d sa id he es ti m at ed Gaffn ey was dr iv in g 50 to 55

m ph in a 35 m

ph zo ne

. Gaffn ey rep li ed

, “ I th ou gh t I was on l y g o i n g i n th e 40 s.”

W hi le he was lo ok in g fo r an in su ran ce card

, di sp at ch to ld th e of fic er th at Gaffn ey ha d

a pr ev io us na rco ti cs hi st or y an d was st il l in vo lv ed in il le ga l na rco ti cs

. Ret ur ni ng to

th e ve hi cl e, th e of

fic er no ti ced Gaffn ey ap pe ared ne rv ou s wit h be ad s of swe at on hi s

fo reh ead

, a sh ak y vo ic e an d ha nd s, an d he av y br eat hi ng

. The of fic er as ke d if he ha d

an y dr ug s or weap on s in th e ve hi cl e. Gaffn ey an swe red “ no ” bu t de cl in ed pe rm is si on

to se arch hi s ve hi cl e. The of fic er or de red hi m to ex it th e ve hi cl e to pr ep are fo r a do g

sn iff (th e of fic er had th e do g in hi s car). Co nd uc ti ng a pa t-d own sea rch , th e o ffi cer
de te ct ed a lo ng ro un d ob ject wit h a bu lb on th e en d. He as ke d Gaffn ey ab ou t it

. Gaffn ey sa id no th in g wa s i n hi s po ck et

. The ob ject was a m et h pi pe

. The of fic er

arre st ed Gaffn ey an d ha d th e ve hi cl e to wed

. An in v e nt or y se arch un co ve red two

la rg e Zip lo c b ag s wi th fou r po un ds of i ce m et h.

Gaffn ey m ov ed to supp re ss an y ev iden ce fro m th e tra ffi c st op , ch al le ng in g bo th

th e la wfu ln es s of th e st op an d th e pa t-d own se arch

. A t t h e su pp res si on he ari ng , Offi cer Bo vy te st ifi ed he rece iv ed tra in in g in id en ti fy in g sp eed el ev en y ears earl ie r.

He typic al ly di d no t “ do m uc h in th e way of sp eed vi ol at io ns ,” an d di d no t rem em be r

if he ha d “ ev er” tu rn ed on hi s in -car rad ar un i t

. H e s a i d h is es ti m at e of 50 -5 5 m ph

was ba se d on hi s ge ne ral ex pe rie nc e wit h t raff ic st op s an d hi s fam il ia rit y wit h th e

area

. He di d no t kn ow th e di st an ce th e car tra ve le d fro m whe n it fir st ap pe ared un ti l

-2

-it pa ss ed hi m

. Gaffn ey pr es en te d ev id en ce th at hi s ve hi cl e tra ve le d ab ou t 47 3 feet in

ni ne sec on ds , an a ve rag e sp eed of 3 5.8 m il es pe r ho ur

. 1

Th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n. Gaffn ey en te red a co nd it io na l gu il t y 2
pl ea, p res erv in g t he rig ht to ap pe al bo th is su es

.

II.

“ In an ap pe al fro m

a di st ric t co ur t’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o s up pr es s ev id en ce,

th is co ur t re vi ews fact ua l fi nd in gs for cle ar er ro r, an d q ue st io ns of c on st it ut io na l

la w de no vo .” Unit

ed Sta te s v. Go rd

on , 74 1 F .3d 87 2, 8 75 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3) . “ W e

m ay affi rm th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o s up pr es s o n a ny gro un ds su pp or te d b y th e

reco rd .” Unit

ed Sta te s v. A ll

en , 70 5 F .3d 36 7, 3 69 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3)

.

A.

Gaffn ey arg ue s Offi cer Bo vy ha d ne i t h e r r eas on ab le su sp ic io n no r pr ob ab le

cau se for a tr affi c st op . “ [T]o jus ti fy [a t raff ic st op ], off

ic ers ne ed on ly ‘ reas on ab le

su s p i c i o n.’” Hei en v. Nor th Ca ro li na , 13 5 S. Ct

. 53 0, 53 6 (2 01 4)

. Rea so na bl e

su sp ic io n ex is ts whe n an of fic er ha s a “ pa rti cu la riz ed an d ob jecti ve ba si s fo r

su sp ect in g th e pa rti cu la r pe rs on st op pe d of br eak in g th e la w.” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s om it te d)

. “ [T]he ul ti m at e to uc hs to ne of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t is

‘reaso na bl en es s.’” Id

. (s om e in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s omit te d)

, qu ot in g Ri le y v.

The vi de o fro m th e of

fic er’s da sh -cam era sh ows Gaffn ey ’s he ad li gh ts co m in g 1

in to vi ew di rect ly in fro nt of h i m a n d p a s si ng hi m ni ne se co nd s la te r. A de fen se in ve st ig at or es ti m at ed th e lo cat io n of Gaffn ey ’s ve hi cl e whe n it fir st ap pe ared

. The
di st an ce b et ween th is lo cat io n a nd Bo vy’ s l oc at io n i s 4 73 feet

.

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de

, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 2

th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-3

-Ca li

fo rn ia

, 13 4 S. Ct

. 24 73

, 24 82 (2 01 4)

. “ The de te rm in at io n o f w h e t he r

. . .

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 l oo ki ng to wha t th e of fic er reas on ab ly k ne w a t th e ti m e.” Unit ed St at es

v. Ho ll in s , 68 5 F.3 d 70 3

, 70 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

.

“ Eve n an of

fic er’s in co m

pl et e in it ia l ob se rv at io ns m ay gi ve reas on ab le su sp ic io n fo r

a tra ffi c st op .” Unit

ed St at es v. Give ns , 76 3 F.3d 98 7, 98 9 (8t h Ci r. 20 14 ) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s om it t e d)

. “ Mi st ak es of la w or fact

, if ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le

, m ay

st il l ju st ify a val id st op .” Ho ll in s , 68 5 F .3d at 7 06

.

Thi s co ur t ha s no t res ol ve d whe th er an of fic er’s vi su al es ti m at e of sp eed al on e

can fu rn is h ei th er pr ob ab le cau se or reas on ab le su sp ic io n to st op a ve hi cl e. Thi s co ur t

ha s he ld th at a “ he li co pt er un it ’s in de pe nd en t, co nt in ue d ob se rv at io n of [a] sp eed in g [v eh ic le ] is en ou gh al on e to jus ti fy [a] st op of th e ve hi cl e.” Gor do n , 74 1 F.3 d at 87 6.

The Ten th Ci rcu it ha s ob se rv ed

, “ It’s lo ng be en th e cas e th at a n o f f i cer’s vi su al

es ti m at io n can su pp ly pr ob ab le cau se to su pp or t a t r a f f i c st op fo r sp eed in g in

ap pr op ria te ci rcu m st an ces .” Unit ed St at es v. Ludw ig

, 64 1 F.3 d 12 43

, 12 47 (1 0t h Ci r.

20 11 ). In th at c a s e , t h e d is tri ct co ur t fo un d cred ib le th e tro op er’s vi su al es ti m at e,

no ti ng hi s go od vi ew to ga ug e th e ap pr oa ch in g ve hi cl e, th e cl ear da y , t he tro op e r’s

1 5 ye a r s ’ ex pe rie nc e as a hi gh way pa tro lm an watc hi ng cars an d es ti m at in g sp eed s,

an d th e la ck of reas on s to di sc red it th e sp eed es ti m at e. “ In th es e ci rcu m st an ces , th e
di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng ab ou t th e rel ia bi li ty of th e tro op er’s vi su al es ti m at io n

rem ai ns un to uc he d, m

us t be affi rm ed

, it se lf su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e tra ffi c st op .” Id

.
at 12 47 -4 8.

The Fo ur th Ci rcu it ad dr es se d an of fic er’s vi su al es ti m at e th at a de fen da nt was

ov er t he po st ed sp eed li m it by onl y fiv e m il es pe r ho ur

.

[T]he Fo ur th Am en dm en t do es no t al lo w, an d th e cas e la w d oe s no t

su pp or t, bl a n ke t ap pr ov al fo r th e pr op os it io n th at an of fic er’s vi su al

sp eed es ti m at e, in an d of it se lf, wil l al way s su ffi ce as a ba si s fo r

-4

-pr ob ab le cau se to in it ia te a tra ffi c st op

. In st ead

, fo r th e pu rp os es of th e

Fo ur th Am en dm en t, th e qu es ti on rem ai ns o ne of reas on ab le ne ss

. Cri ti cal ly, an d as fu rth er ex pl ai ne d be lo w, th e r eas on ab le ne ss of an of fic er’s vi su al sp eed es ti m at e de pe nd s, in th e fir st in st an ce, on whe th er

a ve hi cl e’s sp eed is es ti m at ed to be in si gn ifi can t ex ces s or sl ig ht ex ces s of th e le ga l sp e e d l im it

. If sl ig ht

, th en ad di ti on al in di ci a of rel ia bi li ty

are ne ces sa ry to su p p o r t t h e reas on ab le ne ss of th e of fic er’s vi su al

es ti m at e.

Unit ed St at es v. So wa rd

s , 6 90 F.3 d 5 8 3, 59 1 (4 th Ci r. 20 12 ). Tha t co ur t fo un d “ at

a m in im um , t h e r e mu s t be su ffi ci en t in di ci a of rel ia bi li ty fo r a co ur t to cred it as

reas on ab le an of

fic er’s vi su al es ti m at e of sp eed .” Id

. In an ot h e r c a se , th e Fo ur th

Ci rcu it em

ph as iz ed th at “ th e pr ob ab le cau se in qu iry is —as al way s— reas on ab le ne ss ,

an d th e an al y si s rem ai ns whe th er th e ‘tot al it y of ci rcu m st an ces ’ e s t a b li sh ed th e

‘reaso na bl en es s of th e of

fic er’s vi su al sp eed es ti m at e.’” Unit ed St at es v. Mub di

, 69 1

F.3 d 33 4, 33 9 (4 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (fi nd in g th at th e to ta li ty of ci rcu m st an ces su pp or ts th e

st op whe n two of

fic ers each in de pe nd ently de te rm in ed

, by vi su al ob se rv at io n, th at th e

de fen da nt was ex ceed in g th e sp eed by 8 to 10 m ph ) (q uo ti ng So wa rd

s , 6 90 F.3 d at

59 2- 93 ), va ca te d o n o th er gr ou nd s i n , 13 3 S . Ct. 2 85 1 (2 01 3)

.

In th is cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at Offi cer Bo vy “onl y rare ly is su es

sp eed in g ci ta ti on s,” was “ un su re whe th er he h a s a c tu al ly ev er tu rn ed on hi s in -car
rad ar,” “ hi s ex pe rie nc e wit h tra ffi c st op s is un rel at ed to sp eed in g vi ol at io ns ,” an d he

“ was un ab le to ev en pr ov id e an es ti m at ed di st ance th at Defen da nt ’s ve hi cl e tra ve le d.”

Unit ed St at es v. Gaf fney

, 20 14 W L 79 45 68

, at *4 (N. D. Io wa, Feb ru ary 27

, 20 14 ).

Unl ik e Lu dw ig

, th e di st ric t co ur t sp eci fic al ly sa i d it di d “ no t pl ace a gr eat de al of

co nf id en ce in Offi cer Bo vy’ s es ti m at io n of th e sp eed of th e ve hi cl e.” Id

. Howev er,

rel y in g on da sh -cam era vi de o and th e m eas ur em en t b y th e d efen se in ve st ig at or , th e
di st ric t co ur t fo un d “ th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces es ta bl is he s th e reas on ab le ne ss

of Offi cer Bo vy’ s be l i e f th at Defen da nt was sp eed in g as he ap pr oa ch ed th e

in te rs ect io n.” Id

. at *5

. The co ur t no te d: “ Bec au se th is was an av erag e sp eed

,

-5

-Defen da nt li ke ly tra ve le d fas te r th an 35 .8 m il es pe r ho ur at so m e po in t or po in ts ov er

th e co ur se of t he ni ne sec on ds .” Id

.

Alt ho ug h th e di st rict co ur t la ck ed co nf id en ce in th e of

fic er’s es ti m at e, th e is su e
is no t whe th er th e ev id en ce su pp or ts hi s be li ef th at Gaffn ey was tra ve li ng at 50 -5 5
mph

. “ [S]earch es an d se iz ur es ba se d on m is ta ke s of fact can be reas on ab le .” Hei en , 13 5 S. Ct . a t 53 6. The i ss ue is whet he r th e to ta li ty o f th e ci rcu m st an ces at th e ti m e

of th e st op su pp or ts th e reas on a b l e n e s s o f th e of fic er’s be li ef th at Gaffn ey was

sp eed in g at

al l

. Se e Unit

ed Sta te s v. $ 45

,00 0 i n U.S. Cur re ncy , 74 9 F.3d 70 9, 71 5
(8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (“ Any tra ffi c vi ol at io n, ho wev er m in or , pr ov id es pr ob ab le cau se fo r

a tr affi c st op .”).

Offi cer Bo vy was fam il ia r wit h th e are a , t h o ug ht Gaffn ey was sp eed in g, an d

Gaffn ey “ br ak ed ha rd ” im m ed ia te ly aft er Bo vy u- tu rn ed to fo ll ow hi m

. Bas ed on th e

to ta li ty o f th es e fa c t s —co rro bo rat ed by Gaff ne y ’s a dm is si on an d th e in ve st ig at or ’s

m eas ur em en t— th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y co nc lu de d th at Offi cer Bov y ’s be li ef tha t

Gaffn ey was s pe ed in g was ob

jecti ve ly reaso na bl e.

B.

Gaffn ey ch al le ng es th e pa t-d own se arch arg ui ng th a t O f f i cer Bo vy ha d no

reas on to su sp ect he was arm ed an d da ng ero us

. “ Offi cers m ay co nd uc t a pr ot ect iv e

pa t-d own se arch fo r weap on s du rin g a v a l i d s t o p

. . . whe n th ey ha ve ob jecti ve ly

reas on ab le su sp ic io n t ha t a p ers on wit h wh om th ey are d eal in g m ig ht be arm ed an d

pr es en tl y da ng ero us an d cri m in al act iv it y m ig ht be afo ot .” Unit ed St at es v. Pres to n , 68 5 F.3 d 68 5, 68 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. “ In

de t e r mini ng whe th er reas on ab le su sp ic io n ex is ts

, we co ns id er th e to ta li ty of th e

ci rcu m st an ces in li gh t of th e of fic ers ’ ex pe rie nc e an d sp eci al iz ed tra in in g.” Id

. “ [A]

pa t-d own is pe rm is si bl e if a reas on ab ly pr ud en t m an in th e ci rcu m st an ces wou ld be

-6

-warra nt ed in th e be li ef th at hi s sa fet y or th at of ot he rs was in da ng er.” Id

. (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

The st op oc cu rred la te at ni gh t in a hi gh -cri m e ar e a

. U ni te d St at es v.

Ro gg em an , 27 9 F.3 d 57 3, 57 8 ( 8 t h C i r. 20 02 ) (“ Troo pe r Mo or e was al on e, he

st op pe d Ro gg em an la te at ni gh t, an d th e sc en e of th e st op was po or ly li t. The se fact s

go to of fic er sa fet y .”). Gaffn ey was ab no rm al ly n e r v o u s

. Se e Unit ed St at es v.

Ha nl on , 40 1 F.3 d 92 6, 93 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (“ Han lo n’s ex tre m e ne rv ou sn es s an d

fai lu re to m ak e ey e co nt act wit h Halv ers on bo ls te red Halv ers o n ’s reas on ab le

su sp ic io n th at Han lo n was arm ed an d da ng ero us .”). Offi c e r B o v y was to ld th at he

ha d a na rco ti cs co nv ic ti on an d was st il l i n v o lv ed in th e na rco ti cs tra de

. “ [I]t is

reas on ab le fo r an of

fic er to bel ie ve a pe rs on m ay be arm ed an d dan ge ro us whe n th e

pe rs on is su sp ect ed of be in g in vo lv ed in a dr ug tra n s a c t i o n

. ” Unit ed St at es v.

Bus to s- Tor re s , 39 6 F.3 d 93 5, 94 3 ( 8 t h C i r. 20 05 ). Offi cer Bo vy ha d reas on ab le

su sp ic io n th at Gaffn ey co ul d be arm ed an d da ng ero us an d cri m in al act iv it y was afo ot

. The di st ric t co ur t d id no t er r in up ho ld in g t he pa t-d own sea rch

.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

* * * * * * *

BYE, Cir cu it Ju dg e, di ss en ti ng

.

I di sa gr ee an objec ti ve ly reas on ab le of fic er wou ld ha ve ha d a su ffi ci en t ba si s

to st op Gaffn ey ’s car fo r sp eed in g. Co ns eq ue nt ly, I wou ld rev ers e th e di st ric t co ur t’s

de ni al of Gaffn ey ’s m ot io n to su pp res s, va cat e hi s co nv ic ti on , an d rem an d fo r fu rth er

pr oc eed in gs

. I th eref

or e res pe ct fu ll y d i s s e n t fro m Sect io n II.A. of th e m ajor it y ’s

op in io n a nd wou ld no t re ach Sect io n II .B.

-7

-“ [T]he un de rlyin g co m m an d of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t is al way s th at se arch es

an d se iz ur es m

us t be reas on ab le

. . . .” W il so n v. Ark an sa s, 51 4 U.S. 92 7, 93 1 (1 99 5)
(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. As ap pl ic ab le to Gaffn ey ’s cas e, a tra ffi c st op is

reas on ab le “ whe n an o ffi cer i s awa re o f pa rti cu la riz ed

, ob jecti ve fact s whic h, tak en

to ge th er wit h rat io na l in fere nc es fro m th os e fact s, reas on ab ly warra nt su sp ic io n” th at

a tra ffi c vi ol at io n ha s oc cu rred

. Uni te d St at es v. Gor do n, 74 1 F.3 d 87 2, 87 6 (8 th Ci r.

20 13 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

The ob jecti ve fact s of Gaffn ey ’s cas e are co nt ai ne d wit hi n th e vi de o crea te d by

th e da sh bo ard cam era lo cat ed in Offi cer Bo vy’ s pa t r o l car. Fro m th is vi de o, th e

in ve st ig at or de te rm in ed Gaffn ey ’s ve hi cl e tra ve le d at an av erag e of 35 .8 m il es pe r
ho ur , in a 35 m il e pe r ho ur sp eed zo ne , fro m th e ti m e Offi cer Bo vy co ul d fi r s t se e

Ga f f n e y’s ve hi cl e on Fran kl in St reet un ti l th e po in t whe re Gaffn ey ’s ve hi cl e was

pa ral le l wit h Offi cer Bo vy’ s pa tro l car. Ove r th e co ur se of th is pe rio d, th e ve hi cl e

ap pe ars to tra ve l at a co ns is te nt sp eed

, an d Gaffn ey d o e s no t br ak e un ti l aft er hi s

ve hi cl e ha s al read y pa ss ed Offi cer Bo vy’ s pa tro l car. Fu rth er, whe n Gaffn ey br ak es , he is do in g so to sl ow hi s ve hi cl e to m ak e a rig ht tu rn an d al m os t im m ed ia te ly st op s.

All of t he se ev en ts oc cu rred du rin g n ig ht ti m e h ou rs

.

Fro m th es e fact s, th e m ajor it y so m eh ow co nc lu de s a reas on ab le of fic er wou ld

ha ve a su ffi ci en t ba si s to st op Gaffn ey fo r sp eed in g. I di sa gr ee. To co nc lu de Offi cer

Bo vy o r an y ot he r of

fic er co u ld vi su al ly d is cern a di ffer en ce of a m ere .8 m il es pe r
ho ur ab ov e th e po st ed sp eed li m it is co nf ou nd in g. See Uni te d St at es v. So ward s, 69 0

F.3 d 58 3, 59 4 (2 d Ci r. 20 12 ) (“ [T]he accu racy of hu m an es ti m at io n of sp eed can no t

eas il y , read il y , an d accu rat el y de te rm in e be twee n su ch sm al l va ria ti on s [5 m .p.h .] in

sp eed .” ( i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ). Mo reo ve r, al th ou gh th is fig ur e is an

av erag e, an d th e di st ric t co u r t c on cl ud ed Gaffn ey “ li ke ly tra ve le d fas te r th an 35 .8

m il es p e r ho ur at so m e po in t or po in ts ov er th e co ur se of th e ni ne se co nd s,” th e
ob jecti ve fact s do no t su pp or t t h i s c o nc lu si on

. The vi de o sh ows Gaffn ey ’s v eh ic le

-8

-t r a v e l i n g at a co ns is te nt sp eed

, an d he di d no t be gi n to sl ow hi s ve hi cl e un ti l h e

pa ss ed th e en d p oi nt of t he in ve st ig at or ’s m eas ur em en ts

.

Fu rth er, th e m ajor it y at te m pt s to m ak e Offi cer Bo vy’ s fam il ia rit y wit h th e area

an d th at he th ou gh t Gaffn ey was sp eed in g in to ob je c t i v e fact s. W hi le co ur ts ha ve

co ns id ered an of

fic er’s vi su al es ti m at io n of sp eed as an ob jecti ve fact to co ns id er in

th e reas on ab le su sp ic io n an al y si s, th os e co ur t s h a v e f ou nd th e of

fic ers ha d th e

ne ces sa ry sk il ls

, tra in in g, an d ex pe rie nc e to mak e su ch an es ti m at io n. See Uni te d

St at es v. Mu bd i, 69 1 F.3 d 33 4, 34 1 (4 th Ci r. 20 12 ), va cat ed on ot he r gr ou nd s, 13 3 S.

Ct

. 28 51 (2 01 3) (fi nd in g of fic ers ’ vi su al es ti m at es were su ffi ci en t to su pp or t pr ob ab le

cau se be cau se th e two of

fic ers ga ve vi rtu al ly id en ti cal es ti m at es an d were req ui red

,

as pa rt of a rad ar cert ifi cat io n cl as s, to vi su al ly es ti m at e th e sp eed of ve hi cl es wit hi n

a na rro w m arg in of erro r); Uni te d St at es v. Lud wig

, 64 1 F.3 d 12 43

, 12 47 (1 0t h Ci r.

20 11 ) (c re dit ing an of

ficer’s vi su al es ti m at io n of sp eed to de te rm in e whe th er pr ob ab le

cau se to st op ex is te d pa rti al ly be cau se th e of fic er po ss es se d 15 y ears ’ ex pe rie nc e as

a hi gh way pa tro lm an w atch in g cars an d es ti m at in g sp eed s) ; St at e v. Dun ha m , 67 A.3d

27 5, 27 9 (Vt. 20 13 ) (co ns id eri ng whe th er of fic ers “ rece iv e[d ] pr op er ro ad si de an d

acad em y tra in in g, [ ha ve ] sp en [t] co ns id erab le ti m e on ro ad pa tro l, ga in [ed ]

ex pe rie nc e es ti m at in g sp eed an d co m pa rin g es ti m at es ag ai ns t rad ar, an d hi st or ic al ly

e x h i b i t [ed ] a m arg in of erro r of on ly a few m il es pe r ho ur ” as fact or s to de t e r mi n e
whe th er t he off

ic ers are q ua li fie d t o v is ua ll y est im at e sp eed ).

Co nt rary to cas es whi ch ha ve ut il iz ed of fic ers ’ es ti m at io ns as ob

jecti ve fact s,
Offi cer Bo vy l a c k e d t h e cred en ti al s to vi su al ly es ti m at e sp eed

. He rece iv ed vi su al

es ti m at io n sp eed tra in in g ov er a de cad e pr io r to Gaffn ey ’s st op , he di d no t pr ov id e

a m arg in o f erro r as to ho w accu rat e an y vi su al es ti m at io ns of sp eed he pr ev io us ly

mad e h a d be en , he ha d is su ed ve ry few sp eed in g ci ta ti on s, an d he be li ev ed he h a d

ne ve r tu rn ed on th e rad a r i n hi s pa tro l car. Fu rth er, he was un ab le to pr ov id e an

es ti m at e of th e di st an ce Gaffn ey ’s car co ve red as it ap pr oa ch ed Offi cer Bo vy’ s pa tro l

car al th ou gh he ex pl ai ne d m on it or in g t h e d i s t an ce a ve hi cl e tra ve ls ov er a su rfac e

-9

-area is pa rt of th e te ch ni qu e he ut il iz es fo r vi su a l ly es ti m at in g sp eed

. Bec au se of

Offi cer Bo vy’ s in ex pe rie nc e in vi su al ly es ti m at in g sp eed , h e gr os sl y est im at ed th at

Gaffn ey ’s sp eed was 50 to 55 m il es pe r ho ur , well ab o v e G a f f n ey ’s act ua l av erag e

sp eed

. O ffi cer Bo vy’ s es ti m at io n is th eref or e su bjec ti ve an d do es no t ha ve th e

su pp or t to be co ns id ered as a pa rti cu la riz ed

, ob jecti ve fact whe n de te rm in in g whe th er

reas on ab le su sp ic io n ex is te d. See So ward s, 69 0 F.3 d at 58 8

- 9 0

, 5 94 (fi nd in g th at

be cau se an o f

f i c er la ck ed sp eci al iz ed tra in in g in th e es ti m at io n of ve hi cl e sp eed s,

la ck ed a te c h ni qu e or m et ho d to “ gu es s” vi su al sp eed s, an d ha d di ffi cu lt y wit h

m eas u r e ment s, hi s vi su al es ti m at io n of sp eed “ was in fact a gu es s th at was m erel y

co nc lu so ry , wit ho ut an ap pr op ria te fact ua l fo un da t i o n , a n d si m pl y la ck in g in th e

ne ces sa ry in di ci a of rel ia bi li ty t o b e an ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le ba si s fo r pr ob ab le

cau se to in it ia te a tr affi c st op ”).

The on ly o th er ob

jecti v e fact s ci te d by t he m ajor it y to su pp or t it s co nc lu si on
are th at Gaffn ey ad m it te d to dr iv in g “ in th e 40 s” an d he “ br ak ed ha rd ” aft er Officer

Bo vy m ad e a u- tu rn

. Fi rs t, I do no t be li ev e we can c o n s i d e r G a f f ne y ’s al le ge d

ad m is si on to sp eed in g be cau se Offi cer Bo vy te s t i f i e d Gaffn ey m ad e th is st at em en t

aft er Offi cer Bo vy ha d al read y st op pe d th e ve hi cl e. See Uni te d St at es v. $4 5,0 00 .00

in U.S. Cu rren c y, 7 4 9 F

. 3d 70 9, 71 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (“ [I]f it was no t ob jecti ve ly

reas on ab le fo r th e of

fic er to be li ev e th at a vi ol at io n was oc cu rri ng at th e ti m e th at th e

of fic er de ci de d to effe ct th e st op , th en th e of fic er lack ed pr ob ab le cau se to se iz e th e

m ot or is t.

. . . Acco rd in gl y , th e cri ti cal in qu iry

. . . i s w ha t th e st op pi ng of fic er
ob se rv ed be

fo re pu ll in g ov er a m ot or is t.”) ; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. S a n d e r s, 19 6

F.3 d 91 0, 91 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (“ The de te rm in at io n of whe th er pr ob ab le cau se ex is te d

is n o 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 to wha t th e

of fic er re as on ab ly kne w at t he ti m e.”).

Seco nd

, th e vi de o ta ke n b y t h e da sh bo ard cam era do es no t su pp or t Offi cer

Bo vy’ s as se rti on th at G affn ey “ br ak ed ha rd ” aft er he pa ss ed Offi cer Bo vy’ s pa tro l

car. In st ead

, th e vi de o de pi ct s Gaffn ey br ak in g at a reas on ab le pa ce to m ak e a rig ht

-1 0-tu rn an d i m

m ed ia te ly sto p. No ne th el es s, ev en if we were to co ns id er br ak in g a s an
ob jecti ve fact

, co ur ts ha ve no t fo un d br ak in g, st an di ng al on e, as a su ffi ci en t ba si s to

co nc lu de an in di vi du al was sp eed in g; rat he r, ot he r in di ci a of sp eed in g were pr es en t

whi ch su pp or te d th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of th e tra ffi c st op

. See Uni te d St at es v. Co ld en , No. 11 -M- 98 9- SKG, 2 0 1 1 WL 5 0 39 77 7, at *1 (D. Md . Oc t. 21 , 2 01 1) (fi nd in g th e

of fic er’s un co nt es te d vi su al es t i mat i on of de fen da nt ’s sp eed

, co m bi ne d wit h th e

of fic er’s ob se rv at io ns th at th e ve hi cl e sh oo k an d de fen da nt ta pp ed hi s br a k es ,

am ou nt ed to reas on ab le art ic ul ab le su sp ic io n th at de fen da nt was sp eed in g) ; St at e v.

St eel e, No. 10 1,2 50

, 20 09 W L 34 28 62 4, at *3 (Kan

. Ct

. App

. Oct. 23

, 20 09 ) (fi nd in g

su bs ta nt ia l co mp e te nt ev id en ce su pp or ti ng th e tri al co ur t’s fin di ng of reas on ab le

su sp ic io n of sp eed in g be cau se th e of fic er ob se rv ed de fen d a n t tra ve li ng at an

ex ces si ve rat e of sp eed

, th e of fic er he ard a lo ud en gi ne ro ar, an d th e of fic er ob se rv ed

de fen da nt sl am on hi s br ak es ). Gaffn ey ’s cas e la ck s an y ot he r ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le

in di cat io n th at he was s p e e d i n g , an d as a res ul t, br ak in g al on e can no t pr ov id e

reas on ab le su sp ic io n fo r st op pi ng hi s v eh ic le

.

Fo r th e reas on s pr ov id ed

, I wou ld rev ers e th e de ni al of Gaffn ey ’s m ot io n t o

su pp res s, v acat e h is co nv ic ti on , and rem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

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

-1 1-