NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 08a0121n.06 Filed: F ebrua

ry 27, 2008 Nos. 07-5002; 07-5003 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, P laintif f - App ellee,
v. RICHARD DANIEL J O H NS O N A ND MARC US ANTHONY JOHNSO N, De fend ant s - App e lla nt s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

BEFORE: Mer ritt, R ogers, and McK eague, Circ uit Jud ges MERRITT, Circuit Judge. Th e de fe nd ants , M arc us and Ric ha rd J oh ns on , a

pp e a l th e ir convictions by

challeng ing t h e district cour t’s denial of the ir motions to s uppress e vidence seized from the de fenda

nts during a

traff ic stop. There are two issues we must de cide. The first is whether the re wa s th e re qu isi te re a so na ble su sp ic ion to jus tif

y an inve sti g a tiv e de te nti on and the se c on d is whether the drug dogwas re liable so that its alert would establish proba ble ca use. B eca use we find that th e de te nti on

wa s su pp or te d by re a so na

ble su sp ic ion and the dr

ug do g wa s r e lia

ble , w e up ho ld the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s op ini on , a nd a ff ir m th e de fe nd ants ’ c on vic tio ns .Nos. 07-5002; 07-5003

United States v. J

ohnson

Y vo nne D enni ng and her hus b and Jam es D enni ng co - o wn t he ho m e i n q uest i o n. T he d ef end ant s are t he sons 1 o f Y vo nne D enni ng’ s si st er, E ri ca Jam es. T here i s no i nd i cat i o n i n t he reco rd t hat O f f i cer Lynn knew ab o ut t he d ef end ant s’ rel at i o nshi p t o t he o wners . -2- Duri ngthe su mme r o f 2 00 5, the L e xing ton Pol ic e De pa

rtme nt a ssi g ne d e xtra p a tr ols , including O ffice r Ricky L y nn, to Kenton S tree t, L exington, Kentucky , beca use the De partment wa s
e xpe ri e nc ingpe rs ist e nt p ro ble ms w ith ill e g a l dr ug a c tiv ity

in t he are a . In th e c ours e of

his patr ol, L y nn routinely

chec ked tag numbers on car s parke d on Kenton Stree t. On October 10, 2005, L y

nn ob se rv e d a c ar park e d on Ke nto n Stre e t in fr on t of the De nn ing ’s re sid e nc e , a Ha bit a t f or Humanit y house that Ly

nn associate d with drug activity
. The computer check of the car ’s tag s reve aled they
we re e xpir e d. Th e fo llo wi ng da y , O c tob e r 1 1, 20 05 , Ly

nn ob se rv e d th e same c ar a s it dr ov e pa st h im while he wa s parke d close to Ke nton Street. After confirming the tag s were still expired, L y nn pulled the ca

r over at 10:26 a.m. The de fenda nts do not disput e the va lidity of the tra ffic stop. The c ar’ s occupa

nts included defe ndant M arc us J ohnson, the driver of t he ca r, and de fenda

nt Richard J ohnson, a passeng er. After approa ching the ca r and spe aking with its occupants re g arding the ca r’s owne rs h i p , insurance , and re g istration, L y nn returne d to his poli ce c ar a nd called f

or a canine unit. L y

nn testified t hat he called the canine unit beca use he believed criminal ac tivity might be af oot based upon the following rea sons: he recog nized Ri char d J ohnson, the passeng er, a s having a prior dr ug arr est and Ly

nn saw the car the day befor e the arr est parke d in front of the D enning ’s residenc e , a home he associate d with drug activity . Hi s co n ce rn about the De nning r esidenc e

1 resulted f rom its location in a high- drug -traf ficking are a, his belief that a prior dr ug arr est had take n place on the house’s porch, a conver sation he had with Mr. Denning , who alleg edly explained thatNos. 07-5002; 07-5003

United States v. J

ohnson

-3- his wi fe ’s fa

mil y wa s re sp on sib le fo r any dr ug a c tiv ity oc c ur

ri ng a t that loc a tio n, and his
conver sations with Habitat for Huma nity about it possibly

rec laiming the house due to the drug activity occur ring there
. Additionally , L y nn indicated in his case r eport that the de fenda nt’s car was “usually ” par

ked in front of

the Denninghome. After calling the ca

nine unit, L y

nn beg an wr iting two citations. He returne d to the car once wh ile wr iti ng the c itatio ns in or de r to cla ri fy so me dis c re pa

nc ie s. Ac c or din g to L

y nn , th e c anin e un it
arr ived prior to his completion of the se cond citation. Of fice r Chris Br y an t , a doghandler for
narc otic detec tion dogs, re sponded to L y nn’s ca ll. Up o n ar ri ving at the scene , Br y ant had a

brief discussion w ith L y

nn and the two de fenda

nts were remove d from the c ar a nd instructed to sit on the sidewalk. Almost immediately afte r beingprese nted t o the car, t he dog ale rted to the re ar pa sseng er door. Consequently , Br

y ant and Ly

nn sear ched the car

and discove red dr

ug s in the car and on the defe ndants. Subsequently , Marc us and Richar d J ohnson were arr ested. B oth de fe nd ants fi le d mo tio ns to s up pr e ss a ny and a ll e vid e nc e un lawf

ull y se ize d f ro m th e m. After a hea ring , the district court de nied the d ef en d an t s’ motions. Following the district court’s
ru lin g , th e de fe nd ants e nte re d co nd iti on a l gu ilty ple a s to c ount t wo of the ind ic tme nt, re se rv ingthe ir ri g ht t o a pp e a l th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of the ir mot ion s to su

pp re ss. The fa cts underly

ing the rea sonable suspicion inquiry in this case can b e divided betwee n those that linked the car t o a home associate d with drug activity and those fa cts involving Richar d J ohnson’s prior c riminal history . Reg ardingthe ca r’s location, this Court’s prior holding s state that
c on te xtua l c on sid e ratio ns , s uc h a s e nc ounte ri ngan ind ivi du a l in a hig h- c ri me are a , a re “ re le va nt t o the re asonable suspicion calculus” but alone cann o t “g ive rise to re asonable suspicion.” UnitedNos. 07-5002; 07-5003

United States v. J

ohnson

-4- Sta te s v . Ca ru the rs , 458 F.3d 459, 467 ( 6th Cir. 2006). I n Car uth e rs , the Six th Circuit found
rea sonable suspicion existed when an individual, whose a ppear ance and location matche d the descr iption given in an anony mous c all, fled and made furtive movements when he was a pproac hed by the police at night in a hig h-cr ime are a. Id. at 468. Although the Court found t hat t he conte x tual considerations supporte d the detention, it cautioned ag ainst relying too he avily on these fa ctors. See id. a t 467 (d isc us sin g the da ng e rs of re lying on c on te xtua l fa c tor s inc lud ingc on c e rn s a bo ut r a c ia l, ethnic, and soc ioeconomic pr ofiling) . The Court’s concer ns wer e alleviated in that case beca use the “hig h-cr ime” ar ea w as “c ircumscr ibed to a spec ific interse ction rathe r than an entire neig hborhood” and “the crimes that fr eq u entl y occur [red] i n the ar ea [wer e] specific a nd related to the re ason for which [t he defe ndant] wa s stopped.” Id. at 468. Simi larly , Offic er Ly nn testified that his conce rn was primar ily limit ed to a particular home in the area that was associated with drugs, the same issue for whic h he pull ed over the defendants. Additionally , Offic er L y nn had personal knowledge from his conver sations with Mr. Denning that drug activity was occurr ing in and around the hom e. L y nn’s
re pe a te d c on ve rs a tio ns wi th H a bit a t f or Humanit y a bo ut o ng oin g dr

ugiss ue s wi th the ho me and his
c o n t a c tw i t h M r . D e n n i n g g a v e h i m s u f f i c i e n tc a u s e t o a s s o c i a t e t h e h o m e w i t h dr u g a c t i v i t y. Fur ther, he believed a prior drug arr est had occur red at that home. The defe ndants’ ca r wa s linked to the home in that it had been parke d there the day befor e the traff ic stop a nd it was usually

parke d th ere. Consequently , Offic er Ly nn could re asonably

conclude that the ca

r’s oc cupants ha d a
connec tion to a home he spec ifically associate d with drugtraff icking
. The sec ond fac tor was Richa rd Johns on’s pre sence in the car and Officer

L y nn’s belief

that J o h n s o nh a d

a p r i o r dr u g ar r e s t
. T h e S i x t h C i r c u i t , w h e na d dr e s s i n g p a s t c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y,Nos. 07-5002; 07-5003

United States v. J

ohnson

-5- deter mined that this factor is re levant but “this fac t, by itself, does not cre ate a rea sonable suspicion that c ri min a l a c tiv ity

is c urre ntl

yafoot, wh i ch i s what the Supreme Court require s.” Joshua v. De W itt , 3 4 1 F. 3 d

4 3 0 , 4 4 6 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( ci t i n g Te rry v . O hio , 392 U. S. 1 , 3 0 ( 19 68 )) (e mph a sis in o ri g ina l) . Ri c ha

rd John so n’ s c ri min a l ba c kg ro un d w a s p art ic ula rl y pr ob a tiv e in thi s ca se be c a us e it inv o lv e d dr

u g s , th e s a me is s u e w h ic h c o n c e r n e d O f f ic e r L y n na t t h e ti me o f

th e tr a f f ic s to p . We believe these fac ts a

re sufficie nt to g ive rise to r easona ble suspicion at the time th at Of fi ce r Ly nn
c a lle d th e c anin e un it. Acc epting the def

endants’ time line, the dur ation of the stop w as suffic iently limit ed to the amount of t ime nece ssary for Office r L y nn to assess whether the de fenda nts possessed drug s. The traff ic stop beg an at 10:26 a.m. an d t h e defe ndants’ mother te stified that when she arr ived on the
sce n e, which wa s no later than 11:11 a .m., the sear ch had c oncluded a nd the def

endants ha d been
arr ested. Despite this testimony , defe ndants contend the drug sniff might have occur red a s late as 11 :20 a .m. Th e re c or d r e fl e c ts that Off ic e r L y nn wa s fill ing ou t citatio ns a t 10:3 7 a. m. fo r the tr a ff ic vio la tio ns . T his is the e arl ie st p oin t th a t on e c ou ld m e a sure the a dd iti on a l ti me that th e de fe nd a nts
w e r e d e ta in e d
. Co n s e qu e n tl y , th e d e f e n dants wer e de ta in e d

f o r f o rty
- thr e e mi n u te s , a t m o s t. We fi nd that a fo rt y -t hr e e min ute tr a ff ic sto p is a re a so na

ble pe ri od

of tim e to a llo w p oli c e to c on ta c t a canine unit, wait for it s arr ival, and have a dog chec k for the pr esenc e of na rcotics. See U

nited States

v . D av is , 430 F.3d 345, 354 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (finding a thi rty to forty -five minute detention after the initial traffic stop a r easona ble per iod). F ur the r, the re is n o e vid e nc e that su g g e sts that O ff ic e r L y nn wa s n ot d ili g e nt i n p ur su inghis inv e sti g a tio n. He conta c te d th e c anin e un it i mme diate ly up on re tur nin g to h is c ar f

oll ow inghisNos. 07-5002; 07-5003

United States v. J

ohnson

-6- initial conversation with the def endants. This Court has re peate dly upheld the use of a we ll-trained drug -sniffingdog as a pe rmissible means of de termining whether the defe ndants wer e in possession of nar cotics. See id. at 355. The de fenda

nts also claim on appea l that the di strict court erre d in concluding that the dog ’s
a le rt e sta bl is hed proba

ble c a us e to s e arc h th e de fe nd ant’ s c ar b e c a us e the g ov e rnme nt a lle g e dly failed to e stablish the dog’ s reliability
. “A posit ive i ndication by a prope rly -traine d dog is sufficient to establish probable c ause f or the pre sence of a c ontrolled substance .” Unit ed States v. D iaz , 25 F .3 d 3 92 , 3 93 -9 4 ( 6th

Cir . 1 99 4) . In o rd e r f

or a do g ’s a le rt

to s up po rt

a de te rm inatio n o f p ro ba

ble
cause , “the tra ining a

nd reliability

of the dogmust be established.” Id. at 394. T h e d i s t ri ct co u rt fo u n d

t h er e w as p ro b ab l e c au s e f o r t h e a rr es tb e c a u s e i t fo u n d t h e d o g, B uc k, re lia

ble . T he c ourt

dis c us se d th e do g ’s his tor y and ma de the fo llo wi ngre le va nt f ind ing s: Buc k was tra ined in I ndiana a nd cer tified with Detec tive R ay . L ater transporte d to the L exington P o lice De partment, B uck bec ame the doma in of Off icer Br y ant. Tra ined by

the L exington Police Depa rtment , Bry an ts p en tfi v e 4 0 -h o u r w ee k s wi t h th e d o g u n d er t h e s u p er v i s i o no f t h e D ep ar t m ent’s trainer , Offic er Whit tlesey
. After the initial five wee ks, Br y ant trained and continues to tra in Buc k one day wee kly with supervisory

training
. T h e L exington Police Depa rtment has an inter

nal require ment that any

dog working as a na

rcotics dogcannot r emain ac tive if he ha s too manyfalsepositives, meaning aler

ting when there are no drug s. Although the district c ourt ac knowledg ed that
s o m e false- positives occurr ed duringthe first five w eeks, it found that since Buc k has neve r bee n
re mov e d f

ro m th e fi e ld, his le ve l of fa lse -p os iti ve s mus t no t have re a c he d a n im pe rm iss ibl e le ve l. Buc k’s re latively

short time in the field, two to th ree months before the ar rest, did not neg ate theNos. 07-5002; 07-5003

United States v. J

ohnson

-7- do g ’s re lia

bil ity . When B uc k ale rt e d on the c ar, he did so imm e diate ly and wi th a thr e e -s te p p ro c e ss: first, he made a “he ad cha ng e” w hich is a surprised movement of the head, second, he zeroed in on the source , and t h i rd , h e s at down. Ac cording ly , the cour t found that Buc k “wa s well trained,” reliable , and that he a lerted pr operly
. I n Diaz , the court revie wed the district court’s f indings re g ardingtraining and re liability and found they

wer e not clea

rly err oneous. 25 F .3d at 396. While training a nd p er fo rmanc e do cu m entation ar e usef

ul for a c ourt’s eva luation of a dog ’s re liability , the Court found that “testimony

is sufficient to establish a dog’s reliability ” and there fore the dog handler ’s testimony can establish reliability
. Id. F u r ther, a lthough Of

fice r B ry ant testified that fa lse-positives occur red dur ing Buc k’s training , the Court in Di az found that “a very low perc entag e of f

alse positives is not
nece ssarily

fata l t o a finding that a dr ug detec tion dog is prope rly trained a nd cer tified.” Id. No evidenc e sug g ests that the district court’s f indi n g s are clea

rly err oneous and the only

evidenc e that weig hs ag ainst a finding of reliability , some false- positives a nd heavy relianc e on the dog handler ’s testimony , has pre viously been f ound non-fatal to a dog ’s re liability
. F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e AF F I RM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.