File Na me: 07a0837n.06 Filed: De cembe r 11, 2007 NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

No. 06-4214 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. AL EX I S SH AN EL LDU KE S, Def endant- Appellee
. ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E SO UT HE RN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

/ B e fo re : MA RTI

N, SI L ER, and

RO GE RS, C ir c uit

Judg e s. BO YCE F. MARTI

N, J R., Circuit J udg e. This is an interlocutor y appea l from a district cour t order g r an ti n g a mo ti o n to s u p p r e s s e v id e n c e in a c r im in a l c a s e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt h e ld that the evidenc e in question – 755 g rams of c ocaine hidden nea r the spare tire compar

tment of a c ar – w as the re sult of an improper se arc h beca use police ha d no probable cause to stop the car . After revie w of the re cord, w e REVERSE the district court’s suppre ssion of the evidenc e.

I. O nA p r i l 1 1 , 2 0 0 6 , a ta

p p r o xi m a t e l y

4 : 0 0 p . m . , O h i o S t a t e H i g h w ay Pa tr ol T r o o p e r R
. J. J acks was parke d in a crossove r on Hig hway 35, observing eastbound traff ic. J acks saw a car trave ling at an abnormally slow speed – which he subseque ntly deter mined to be 53 miles per hourNo. 06-4214

United States v. Duk

es Pag e 2

J a c k s a lso a lleg e d tha t D u k e s’s rig id p o sitio n in the c a r, w ith h e r ha n d s in t h e te n -an d -two p o sitio n , alo n g w ith D u k e s’s 1 f ai l ur e t o l oo k a t t he po l i ce as s he drove by , cons t i t ut ed s us pi ci ous beha vi or. W e a gr ee wi t h t he di s t r i ct cour t t hat s uch l aw- abi di ng beha vi or c ann ot be t he bas i s of ei t her probabl e c aus e or of r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o s t op a v ehi cl e. T hi s conv er s at i on ha pp ens at 16: 12 : 50 on t he vi deo camera
. 2 – on the hig hway , which has a speed lim it of 55 miles per hour f or semi-truc ks and 65 miles per hour for c ars. L ooking into the ve hicle, he obse rved the car was be in g d ri v en by

an Af rica n-Amer ican fe ma le (D uk e s)
. Af

te r the c ar ha d pa sse d J a c ks ’s ob se rv a tio n point, Jac ks pu lle d o ut a nd be g an to fo llo w i t. O ve r t

he ne xt fe w m inute s, Jac ks a sse rt s th a t D uk e s c omm itt e d thre e tr affic v iol a tio ns . First, Duke s “followe d too closely ” to a semi-truc k for a fewseconds a s the semi slowed down on a hill. Second, J acks a sserts that Dukes e ng ag ed her turn signa l only

afte r she ha d begun chang ing lanes. F inally , Dukes mer g ed behind a semi-truck that had entered the highw ay and aga in followed too c los e ly . Jac ks a sse rt s th a t at th is p oint, h e de c ide d to sto p D uk e s. 1 When Dukes opene d her pur se to remove her dr ivers’ lice nse, Jacks noti ce d a p lastic bag containing marijuana residue inside the purse. He arr ested Duke s, sear ched he r ca r, and f ound 755 g rams of c ocaine near the s pare tire compartment in the t runk. S oon afte r Jacks found the coc aine, t h e v i d e o r e c o r d i n g o f t h e s t o p s h o w s J a c k s s p e a k i n g o nt h e p h o n e , p e r h a p s t o h i s s u

p e r v i s o r . In 2
re sp on se to what mu st h ave be e n a qu e sti on , Jac ks ans we rs : Following too c lose. She drove by us, so we saw her comin’, we chec ked her spe ed [speaking to a

nother officer ] what was it, 50, as she wa s g oing by us? [Other office r
ans we rs “ 53 ” ] – 53 a s wh e n sh e we nt by us , y ou kn ow , ju st obvious , so Ig ot behind her a nd a semi pulled out – Icouldn’t g et any thing on he r other tha

n she wa s drivingNo. 06-4214

United States v. Duk

es Pag e 3 do wn

a bo ut 4 5 mi le s p e r h our, 55 a t the mos t, 55. Th e n a tru c k pull e d o ut f ro m a re st
are a, and she g ot behind it, so – following too close violation.
At the suppression hea

ring , Dukes a

rgued that the c ar sear ch was illeg al bec ause the police had no probable cause to believe that a traff ic violation ha d occur

red be fore pulling her

over. The district
c ourt a g re e d, fi nd ingthat the te sti mony and re c or d fa ile d to su pp or t th a t Jac ks ha d p ro ba

ble c a us e to b e lie ve that a

tr a ff ic vio latio n h a d o c c ur

re d. Th e g ov e rnme nt n owa pp e a ls.

II. The re view of a

g rant of a

motion to s uppress is a mixed question of fac t and law. United Sta te s v . S an for d , 476 F.3d 391, 394 (6th Cir. 2007). We revie w the district cour t’s finding s of fa ct for clear err or and the di strict court’s c onclusions of law de novo
. Un ite d S tates v . D illar

d , 438 F.3d 675, 680 (6th Cir. 2006). A fa ctual findingis clear ly err oneous whe n, althoug h there may be evidenc e to suppor

t it, the revie wing court, considering all the evidenc e, “is lef t with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has bee n committed.” United States v. Navarro-Camac ho , 186 F.3d 70 1, 70 5 ( 6th

Cir . 1 99 9) . F ina lly , th e fa c tua l e vid e nc e mus t be vie we d “ in t he lig ht m os t li ke ly

to support the district court’s decision.” Sa nfo rd , 476 F.3d at 394. The district court’ s conclusions of law ar e re viewed de novo
. Id. The district cour

t made the f

actua l finding that Dukes did not follow too closely to the car in front of he r, and the leg al findi ng that even if she had, she would not have be en in violation of Ohio law. We hold that both of these c onclusions were in error
.No. 06-4214

United States v. Duk

es Pag e 4

T hi s was the d i st ance t est i f i ed to b y O f

f i cer J acks, a nd a p p arent l y c o nced ed b y D ukes i n her bri ef and i n oral argument 3 b e fo re o u r c o u rt. Reg ardingthe district court’s f actua l findings, the c ourt fi rs t fo und that “duringthe entire sto p r e c or de d o n ta

pe , Jac ks ne v e r advised Def endant that the stop wa s predicated on any basis other than her slow speed, whic h did not violate any traff ic law. In eff

ect, Jacks stopped this Defe ndant for no ba sis supported in law or fa ct.” United States v. Duk es , 444 F . Supp . 2d 8 22 , 8 31 (S .D . O hio 2006). The dis trict court, howe ver, f ailed to ana ly

ze the post-sear ch re cording . Twelve minutes after pulling over

Dukes’s c ar, Jacks cle arly states on the video that he followed Duke s until she
c omm itt e d th e fo llo wi ng -t oo -c los e vio latio n. With out a de te rm inatio n by the dis tr ic t c ourt

that th is statement wa s fabr icated, w e ar e lef t with the definite and firm conviction that the district court e rre d in finding that the rec ord did not support the stop. T h e cour t’s second f

actua l finding pe rtained to Duke s’s alleg ed fa ilure to signa l a lane ch an ge. T h e d i s t ri ct co u rt fo u n d t h at t h e r ec o rdfa i l s t o s u

p p o rt th i s cl ai m , an d u n l i k e th e f o l l o wi n gtoo-close of

fense , the vi deo shows no ref ere nce to a si g nal violation. Thus, we ca nnot say the cour t cl ea rl y erre d i nt h i s fi n d i n g. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s le g a l f ind ing s w e re ba se d o n a

n e rr on e ou s inte rp re tatio n o f O hio tr a ff ic law. Th e dis tr ic t court c on c lud e d th a t e ve n if Duke s h a d c ome wi thi n tw o c ar- le ng ths of the se mi truck in front of her, she would not have violate d any state law by

doing so. The court c oncluded 3 that O hio Re vis e d Co de § 451 1. 34 (“ Spa c e be tw e e n movi ngve hic le s” ), wi th i ts r e qu ir e me nt t hat a
mo to ri st “sha ll n ot f

oll owano the r v e hic le , s tr e e tc ar, or tr a c kle ss t

ro lle y mor e c los e ly

tha n is
rea sonable a

nd prudent,” does not require one car-le ng th for every ten m iles per hour of spee d. 444 F. Supp. 2d at 829. B ased on its re adingof the statute, the court held that “if De fenda nt, in her ownNo. 06-4214

United States v. Duk

es Pag e 5
e sti matio n, be lie ve d that, und e r the c ir c ums tanc e s, sh e wa s pro vid inge no ug h r oo m be tw e e n h e rs e lf and the se mi in front of

her,” she would be in c ompliance with the statute. Id. This conclusion was in error . A number of

Ohio case s have use d the ca r-leng th ru le as a

n indicator of a

§ 4511.34 violation. See, e .g. , Un ite d S tates v . R ob e rts , 492 F. Supp. 2d 771, 774 (S.D. Ohio 2005); State v. Me za , N o. L -0 3- 12 23 , 2 00 5 WL 63 50 28 , at *5 (O hio Ct. App. 20 05 ); State v. Gonzales , 4 3 O hio App. 3d 59, 62 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987). No case conclude s that a driver’ s opinion of her own rea ction tim e is the so le de te rm inatio n o f a vio latio n; i nd e e d, thi s su

bje c tiv e a sse ssm e nt of a vio latio n w ou ld prec lude an of

fice r fr om ever

knowing if someone wa s breaking the law.

III
. The lawin Ohio is clear that the car -leng th rule is a wor kabl e i n d i ca t o r o f a § 4511.34 violation, and the video supports Officer J acks’ s claim that Dukes ha d committed such a violation. For these re asons, the stop and s u b s eq u ent s ear ch of the car wer e leg al, and we REVERSE the de c isi on of the dis tr ic t c ourt

to g ra nt D uk e s’ s mo tio n to su

pp re ss.