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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 6- 41 02

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

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.

Sh arro d J ua ne l Ro we

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 Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 19 , 20 17

Fil ed : Dec em

be r 26 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BEAM, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Sh arro d Ju an el Ro we, who was co nv ic te d fo ll owi ng a jury tri al of co ns pi racy

to di st r ib ut e co cai ne

, ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t's pr et ria l de ni al of hi s m ot io n to 1

The Hon or ab le Dav id S. Dot y

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of 1

Mi nn es ot a, ad op ti ng th e rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on of th e Hon o r a b l e Bec ky R.

Tho rs on , Uni te d S ta te s M ag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.su pp res s as well as th e co ur t's la te r Gui de li ne s cal cu la ti on an d res ul ti ng se nt en ce. W e

affi rm

.

I. BACKGRO UND

The ge ne si s of th is cas e is th e st op o f t h e v e h i c le Ro we was dr iv in g on

Nov em be r 30

, 20 14

, in th e Mi nn eap ol is area

. Alt ho ug h di sc us si ng arg um en ts at th e

ou ts et m ay be un co nv en ti on al

, th e so ur ce of th e fact s th em se lv es are di sp ut ed in th is

cas e so we be gi n by ad dr es si ng th e le ga l arg um en ts on th e d i s pu te d fact ua l is su es

.

Ro we m ad e hi s in it ia l ap pe aran ce on th e sa m e d a y th e m ag is tra te jud ge is su ed a

r e p o r t an d reco m

m en da ti on de nyin g m ot io ns to su pp res s of Ro we's pr ev io u s

c o d e fen da nt s. Thu s, Ro we en te red th es e pr oc eed in gs af te r a he ari ng to ok p l a c e

co ve rin g th e st op an d se iz ur e. Ro we th en m ov ed on hi s o w n b e h a l f to su pp res s

ev id en ce an d s ta te m en ts rel at ed to th e st op of t he BMW.

A he ari ng was he ld on Ro we's m ot io n on Ja nu a r y 1 3, 20 16

. Dur in g Ro we's

he ari ng

, th e pa rti es di sc us se d whet he r th e co ur t co ul d, o r wou ld , con si de r ev id en ce

an d te st im on y ad du ced at th e Aug u s t 25

, 20 15

, he ari ng he ld on th e co de fen da nt s'

m ot io ns

. Alt ho ug h Ro we's co un se l in it ia ll y ag reed to th e us e of th e Aug us t he ari ng

2

te st im on y

, an d see m in gl y rei te rat ed th at in te nt io n m or e th an on ce, bot h par ti es al so

as se rte d rel uc ta nc e an d ob jecti on s t o th e m ag is tra te jud ge at th e Ja nu ary he ari ng

reg ard in g i ts us e. The c ou rt i nt im at ed at on e ti m e ear ly in t he he ari ng th at it wou ld

no t rel y up on th e Aug us t te st im on y bu t ul ti m at el y ap pe ared to m ai nt ai n it s in te nt io n

to rev ie w t es ti m on y fro m th e Aug us t s up pr es si on he ari ng in vo lv in g t he ex act sa m e

st op

. Acco rd in gl y

, it was eq ui vo cal at be st as to ho w, if at al l, th e Aug us t te st im on y

wou ld be us ed . At each he ari ng –Au gu st an d J an ua ry –t he go ve rn m en t o ffer ed on ly

two wit ne ss es

. The of

fic er who i n i t ia te d th e st op

, Troo pe r Thu l, te st ifi ed at bo th

App el la nt 's Mo ti on to Su pp le m en t th e Rec or d on App eal to i nc lu de th e 2

tra ns cri pt fro m

th e Aug us t 2 5, 2 01 5, h eari ng is gra nt ed

.

-2

-he ari ng s bu t di ffer en t in ve st ig at or s of fere d th e ad di ti on al te st i mon y –Of fic er Eva ns

i n A u g u s t an d Offi cer Bi ed erm an in Ja nu ary. As is ev id en t fro m th e rep or t an d

reco m m en da ti on of th e m ag is tra te jud ge on Ro we's m ot io n to su pp res s, it di d in fact

refe ren ce ev id en ce ad du ced at t he Aug us t h eari ng

.

Ro we fir st cl ai m s th at th e m ag is tra te jud ge an d th e di st ric t co ur t vi ol at ed hi s

Due Pro ces s an d Co nf

ro nt at io n Cl au se rig ht s b y r e lying on ev id en ce ad du ced at a

pr ior he ari ng in vo lv in g Ro we's co de fen da nt s without pr ovi din g Ro w e the oppo rt uni ty

to as k an y qu es ti on s or cro ss -ex am in e an y no n- pr es en t wit ne s s e s

. U .S. Co ns t.

am en ds

. V, VI. The go ve rn m en t res po nd s fir st

, th at th e di st ric t cou rt di d no t in fact

rel y up on ev id en ce ad du ced at th e earl ie r he ari ng bu t rat he r on ly in cl ud ed th e Aug us t

he ari ng in it s ci ta ti on li st as ad di ti on al su pp or t. It cl ai m s th e fact s se t fo rth by th e

co ur t were ad du ced in th ei r en ti ret y du rin g th e Ja nu ary he ari ng –t ha t th e two he ari ng s

were es se nt ia ll y id en ti cal

. Seco nd

, th e go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at ev en if th e co ur t rel ie d

in pa rt o n e vi de nc e fro m

th e Aug us t h eari ng , it was e nt it le d t o d o s o.

Hav in g th or ou gh ly rev ie wed bo th he ari ng tra ns cri pt s, we fin d th at th ere were

in fact so m e di ffer en ces in th e te st im on y ad du ced an d th e two he ari ng s were no t

"i de nt ic al " as th e go ve rn m en t cl ai m s. Howev er, an y fact s reci te d by th e di st ric t co ur t

th at were so le ly ad du ced at th e Aug us t he ari ng were no t le ga ll y si gn ifi can t in th e fin al

a n al y si s. Im

po rta nt ly, at bo th he ari ng s, th e go ve rn m en t of fere d th e se arch warra n t

an d th e two po li ce vi de os of Ro we's st op

, al l of whi ch pr ov id e ex te ns iv e in fo rm at io n

reg ard in g th e in ve st ig at io n, th e st op

, an d th e ul ti m at e se arch

. The di st ric t co ur t

ap pr op ria te ly ru le d up on th e m ot io n to su pp res s be fo re it

. Too

, at Ro we's tri al

, bo th

in ve st ig at in g o ffi cers –Ev an s an d B ie de rm an –t es ti fie d.

No m at te r th e co m

pa ris on of th e ev id en ce ad du ced at bo th he ari ng s, it was no t

erro ne ou s fo r th e di st r i c t co ur t to rev ie w ev id en ce ad du ced at th e Aug us t he ari ng

.

Alt ho ug h de nyin g th e rig ht to cro ss -ex am in e a wit n e s s at tri al "wo ul d be

co ns ti tu ti on al erro r of th e fir st m ag n i t u d e" in m os t in st an ces

, th e rig ht of

-3

-co nf

ro nt at io n is no t ab so lu te

. Uni te d St at es v. Bo y ce, 79 7 F.2 d 69 1, 69 2- 93 (8 th Ci r.

1 9 8 6 ) ( q u o t in g Bro ok ha rt v. Ja ni s, 38 4 U.S. 1, 3 (1 96 6) ). Co ur ts m ay co ns id e r

he ars ay ev id en ce at su pp res si on he a rin gs an d it is no t un co m m on fo r di ffer en t

of fic ers to te st ify at th es e he ari ng s in va rio us cap aci ti es

. Uni te d St at es v. Tho m ps on

,

53 3 F.3 d 96 4, 96 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) ("Al th ou gh no t ad m is si bl e at tri al

, th e di st ric t co ur t

m ay rel y on he ars ay ev id en ce at a su pp res si on he ari ng ."). "[E]vi de nc e co ns is ti ng of

th e ou t-o f-c o u rt st at em en ts of pe rs on s no t te st ifyin g at tri al m ay be ad m it te d ev en

th ou gh th e de fen da nt ha s no op po rtu ni ty to ei th er co nf ro nt or cro ss -ex am in e th e

de cl aran ts ." Bo y ce, 79 7 F.2 d at 69 3. Thu s, ha d an y of th e fact s so le ly ad du ced at th e

Aug us t he ar i n g b e e n le ga ll y si gn ifi can t in th e co ur t's an al y si s, th e co ur t di d no t err

in rel y in g o n t ha t t es ti m on y

.

Eve n th ou gh it was no t erro ne ou s fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to rel y up on ev id en ce

fro m th e earl ie r he ari ng

, we reci te th e fact s li m it ed to th os e kn own so le ly as a res ul t

of th e te st im on y an d ex hi bi ts ad m it te d at Ro we's Ja nu ary he ari ng

. St at ed earl ie r, an y

fact ua l d iff

eren ces be twee n t he two he ari ng s t ha t wer e al le ge dl y rel ie d u po n by t he

di st ric t co ur t w e r e no t le ga ll y si gn ifi can t, bu t we li m it ou r reci ta ti on on ly to th e

Ja nu ary he ari ng to m ak e th at read il y ap pa ren t.

In th e fal l of 2 0 14 , a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t (CI) who ha d fo r y ears pr ov id ed

ac cu ra te

, tim el y an d ve rif

ia bl e in fo rm at io n to th e po li ce, in fo rm ed Mi nn eap ol is po li ce

th at Hou st on Oli ve r was co or di na ti ng t he sh ip m en t of co cai ne fro m Ariz on a to

Mi nn eap ol is vi a two -d ay pr io rit y m ai l. He st at ed th at th e co cai ne wou ld be pa ck ag ed

in si lv erwar e bo xe s fro m a pa rti cu la r po st of fic e in Mar ic op a, Ariz on a. Mi nn eap ol is

po li ce, al on g wit h th e co op erat io n of th e Mi nn eap ol is po st al in sp ect or

, su cces sf ul ly

in te rcep te d a sh ip m en t of co cai ne m ai le d fro m Ariz on a to Mi nn es ot a ba se d up on th is

in fo rm at io n. The CI im

pl ic at ed th ree in di vi du al s in th e sh ip m en t of th e co cai ne

, on e

of who m co op erat ed wit h th e po li ce fo ll owi ng th e in te rcep ti on of th e pa ck ag e. Thi s

m an co nf irmed hi s ro le in th e sc he m e, an d co nf irmed th e in fo rm at io n pr ov id ed by th e

-4

-CI reg ard in g th e pa ck ag in g an d sh ip m en t of th e dr ug s, an d th e n a mes o f th e two

ot he rs in vo lv ed . Rowe wa s n ot na m ed at t ha t t im e.

Th e CI ad di ti on al ly to ld of fic ers th at Oli ve r was go in g to tra ns po rt a la rg e

qu an ti ty of co cai ne fro m Ariz on a to Mi nn es ot a in a gr ay BMW wit h Mi nn e so ta

li cen se pl at es on Nov em

be r 30

. The CI pr ov id ed th e ap pr ox im at e arri va l ti m e bu t di d

no t k no w th e id en ti ty of th e p ers on tra ns po rti ng th e co cai ne

. A su bs eq ue nt reco rd s

c h e c k rev eal ed th at Oli ve r was th e reg is te red own er of a 20 02 BMW 74 5Li wit h

Mi nn es ot a li cen se pl at es

, jus t as th e CI st at ed

. Ser g e a n t Bi ed erm an of th e

Mi nn e a p o l i s Po li ce Dep art m en t wor ke d on th is cas e wit h th e m ai l in fo rm at io n an d

ag ai n whe n th e CI ga ve in fo rm at io n ab ou t th e BMW tra ns po r t

. He was th e CI's

p r i m ary co nt act an d th e of fic er who co or di na te d th e st op an d la te r se ar c h o f t h e

ve hi cl e.

Bas e d o n t h e CI's in fo rm at io n th e Mi nn eap ol is po li ce is su ed an al ert ab ou t

Oli ve r's BMW's p os si bl e in vo lv em en t i n na rco ti cs tra ffi ck in g a nd law en fo rcem en t

of fic ia ls

, in cl ud in g Mi nn es ot a St at e Troo pe r Thu l, su rv ei ll ed In te rs ta te 35 in an effo rt

to in te rcep t th e car. Afte r be in g ad vi se d th at of fic ers i nv ol ve d in th e on go in g

in ve st ig at io n ha d lo cat ed th e su sp ect ed ve hi cl e, an d req ue st ed th at sh e st op it

,

Tr oo pe r Thu l ul ti m at el y sp ot te d it an d pu ll ed it ov er. Des pi te th e in fo rm at i o n s h e

rece iv ed fro m di sp at ch , a nd he r kn owl ed ge th at th e v eh ic le wou ld be im po un de d i f

di sc ov ered

, Troo pe r Thu l de ve lo pe d he r own pr ob ab le cau se to st op th e ve hi cl e an d

pu l l e d t h e B M W ov er fo r ex ces si ve win do w ti nt

. Sh e cl ai m ed it was he r reg ul ar

pr act ic e to de ve lo p he r own pr ob ab le cau se fo r a tra ffi c st op ev en whe n sh e ha s ot he r

in fo rm at io n re ga rd in g p os si bl e cri m in al act iv it y

.

Troo pe r Thu l pu ll ed Ro we ov er at ab ou t 9: 45 p.m

. an d was joi ne d by o th er

of fic ers

. Thu l ap pr oa ch ed th e BMW an d qu es ti on ed Ro we, th e so le oc cu pa nt of th e

ve hi cl e. Thi s in it ia l co nv ers at io n la st ed ab ou t fo ur m in ut es wit h Thu l as ki ng ro ut in e

qu es ti on s. Ro we in it ia ll y to ld Thu l th at he was tra ve li ng to hi s ho m e in Eag an

,

-5

-Mi nn es ot a (a ci ty in th e op po si te di rect io n) bu t ch an ge d hi s an swe r to st at e th at he

was go in g to hi s gi rlf

rie nd 's ho us e. He a l s o e xp la in ed th at th e BMW be lo ng ed to

"H oust on." The reaf

te r, Troo pe r Thu l ret ur ne d to he r ve hi cl e to pe rfo rm ro ut in e tra ffic

st op ch eck s an d as sh e di d so

, a se co nd of fic er ap pr oa ch ed Ro we an d ta lk ed to hi m

.

Th e o ffi cers co nf

erre d aft er th es e in te ract io ns an d no te d in co ns is te nc ie s in Ro we's

an swe rs th at su bs ta nt ia te d th e in it ia l in fo rm at io n th ey ha d rece iv ed

. Acco rd in gl y

,

th ey cal le d a na r c o ti cs K9 an d Thu l co nt in ue d to co m pl et e he r ro ut in e ch eck s an d

pa pe rwo rk

.

Troo pe r Thu l ne ve r is su ed a ci ta ti on fo r ex ces si ve win do w ti nt

. Abo ut th e ti m e

th e na rco ti cs K9 arri ve d, of fic ers rem ov ed Ro we fro m th e ve h i c l e

, ha nd cu ffed hi m

a n d pl aced hi m in th e ba ck of a sq ua d car. Offi cers pu t Ro we in th e sq u a d c a r

be cau se of th e lo cat io n of the st op (o n a bu sy ro ad way ), th e weat he r (fri gi dl y co ld ),

an d th e im

pe nd in g do g sn iff

; an d th ey ha nd cu ffed hi m fo r of fic er sa fet y

. W hi le in th e

pa tro l car, Ro we can be he ard on th e ve hi cl e's reco rd in g syste m st at in g, "So m eb od y

to ld on us

. So m eb od y to l d o n us ." Ro we as ke d to us e th e res tro om an d he was

tra ns po rte d to th e po li ce st at io n an d al lo wed to do so

. He was no t arre st ed th at ni gh t.

At th e sc en e, whi le Ro we was in th e ba ck of th e sq ua d car, a dr ug do g al ert ed to th e

pr es en ce of na rco ti cs ne ar th e tru nk of th e v e h i cl e, an d th e of fic ers to wed an d

im po un de d th e ve hi cl e. Offi cers ul ti m at el y se arch ed th e v eh ic le on Decem be r 2,

20 14 , pu rs ua nt to a warra nt an d d is co ve red si x p ack ag es of c oc ai ne

.

Ro we m ov ed to di sm is s th e in di ct m en t an d to su pp res s th e ev id en ce an d th e

"s ta te m en ts " he m ad e in th e sq ua d car. The m ag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d de ni al of

bo th an d t he di st ric t co ur t ad op te d t he rep or t an d re co m m en da ti on

.

-6

-II

. DISCUSS IO N

A. Sto p a nd Sei zure

In ou r rev ie w of th e di st ric t co ur t's de ni al of a m ot io n to su pp res s ev id en ce, we

rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t's fin di ng s of fact fo r cl ear erro r, an d rev ie w de no vo whe th er

th e se arch vi ol at ed th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. Uni te d St at es v. Pera le z, 52 6 F.3 d 11 15

,

11 19 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). The Fo ur th Am en dm en t pr ot ect s ag ai ns t un reas on ab le se arch es

an d s ei zu res . U.S. Con st . am en d. IV. "A t raff ic st op co ns ti tu te s a se iz ur e un de r th e

Fo ur th Am en dm en t," an d m us t be suppor

te d by ei th er pr ob ab le cau se or an art ic ul ab le

su sp ic io n th at a vi ol at io n of la w ha s oc cu rred

. Pera le z, 52 6 F.3 d at 11 19 ; Uni te d

St at es v. Herr era- Gon zal ez, 4 74 F.3d 11 05 , 11 09 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7)

.

Ro we's arg um en ts on ap pe al ch al le ng e th e st op an d hi s de te nt io n on

co ns ti tu ti on al gr ou nd s

, f o cu si ng on Troo pe r Thu l's st at ed reas on fo r th e st op

, th e

ex ces si ve ly ti nt ed win do ws. Ro we arg ue s th at th e tra ffi c st op was un co ns ti tu ti on al ly

ex pa nd ed be y on d it s in it ia l pu rp os e an d th at he w as de fact o arre st ed wit ho ut

pr ob ab le cau se

. Howev er, di sc us si ng on ly Thu l's reas on fo r th e st op do es no t te ll th e

who le st or y an d we do no t revi ew th is st op in a va cu um

. The co ll ect iv e kn owl ed ge

of th e in ve st ig at in g of

fic ers an d th e of

fic ers at th e sc en e pa in ts a di ffer en t pi ct ur e an d

de m an ds an alt ern at iv e an al y si s.

Pro ba bl e cau se fo r th e st op an d se arch of th is v e h i c l e m ay be ba se d on th e

co llec tiv e know le dge of all la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers in vo lv ed in th e in ve st ig at io n an d

ne ed no t be ba se d so le ly up on in fo rm at io n wit hi n kn owl ed ge of th e of fic er(s ) on th e

sc en e if th ere i s s om e d eg ree o f co m m un ic at io n. Un it ed Sta te s v . Sha ck le fo rd , 83 0

F.3 d 75 1, 75 3- 54 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). " S u bjec ti ve in te nt io ns pl ay no ro le in or di na ry

,

pr ob ab le -cau se Fo ur th Am en dm en t an al y si s." W hr en v. Uni te d St at es

, 51 7 U.S. 80 6,

81 3 (1 99 6) (rel y in g on y e a r s of pr eced en t to fo recl os e an y arg um en t th at th e

co ns ti tu ti on al reas on ab le ne ss of tra ffi c st op s de pe nd s on th e act ua l m ot iv at io ns of th e

-7

-in di vi du al of fic ers in vo lv ed ); Uni te d St at es v. Mor al es

, 23 8 F.3d 95 2, 95 4 (8t h Cir.

20 01 ) (p ro ba bl e cau se m ay be ba se d on co ll ect iv e kn owl ed ge of al l of fic ers in vo lv ed

in th e in ve st ig at io n an d ne ed no t be ba se d so le ly on th e in fo rm at io n wit h i n t he

kn owl ed ge of th e of

fic er on th e sc en e, if t h e r e i s so m e de gr ee of co m m un ic at io n)

.

Giv en th e co ll ect iv e kn owl ed ge of th e in ve st i g a t i n g of fic ers

, in cl ud in g th e

co rro bo rat ed CI ti ps bo th pr ev io u s ly an d on go in g, th e al ert

, an d th e req ue st by

of fic ers fo r Troo pe r Thu l to st op th e id en ti fie d ve hi cl e, th e st op it se lf was su pp or te d

by pr ob ab le cau se

. Uni te d St at e v. Ham br ic k, 63 0 F.3 d 74 2, 74 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) ("To

su pp or t a pr ob ab le cau se de te rm in at io n, of fic ers m ay rel y on an in fo rm an t's ti p if th e

in fo rm an t ha s pr ov id ed rel ia bl e in fo rm at io n in th e pa st or if hi s ti p is in de pe nd en tl y

co rro bo rat ed .").

In ve st ig at in g of

fic ers rece iv ed in fo rm at io n fro m a co nf id en ti al rel ia bl e so ur ce

reg ard in g th e dr

ug de al in gs of Hou st on Oli ve r, an d ot he rs

, sp eci fic al ly al ert in g th em

to a la rg e sh ip m en t of dr ug s on Nov em be r 30 co m in g fro m Ariz on a to Mi nn es ot a in

a BMW s pe ci fic al ly d es cri be d by t he C I

. The CI co nv ey ed th is in fo rm at io n on th e

he el s of te ll in g of

fic ers ab ou t th e sh ip m en t vi a m ai l of co cai ne fro m t h e s a m e

in di vi du al th at res ul te d i n a su cces sf ul in te rcep ti on . Bas ed on th is in fo rm at io n, t he

al ert wen t ou t vi a di sp at ch on Nov em be r 30 a n d th us al ert ed Troo pe r Thu l to th e

po ss ib il it y th at th is BMW wou ld be on th e ro ad way th at ni gh t. Befo re sh e id en ti fie d

th e ve hi cl e, ho wev er, sh e rece iv ed a cal l fro m in ve st ig at or s wor ki ng th e cas e th at th ey

ha d sp ot te d th e car an d as ke d th at sh e co nd uc t a st op

. Onc e pu ll e d o v e r

, R owe

hi m se lf co rro bo rat ed th e in fo rm at io n pr ov id ed by th e CI. Ro we affi rm ed th at he was

dr iv in g " Hou st on 's" car fr om Ariz on a to Mi nn es ot a as in di cat ed by the in fo rm an t.

The di st ric t co ur t he ld th at de sp it e Troo pe r Thu l's ex pl an at io n th at sh e pu ll ed

th e car ov er fo r th e ov erl y ti nt ed win do ws, th e pr ob ab le cau se th at al read y ex is te d

fro m th e CI's in fo rm at io n was en ou gh in th is cas e. Sp eci fic al ly, th e co ur t he ld th at

"[b ]ased on th i s p r o b ab le cau se to be li ev e th at th e BMW co nt ai ne d co cai ne

, th e

po li ce were au th or iz ed un de r th e au to m ob il e ex cep ti on to st op

, se arch

, an d se iz e th e

-8

-ve hi cl e wit ho ut a warra nt ." Bas ed on ou r de n o v o rev ie w of th e reco rd

, we al so

co nc lu de th at th e co ll ect iv e kn owl ed ge of th e of fic ers su pp or t th e st op an d de te nt io n

of Ro we, as well as th e la te r se arch of th e im po un de d ve hi cl e. Uni te d St at es v. Vor e,

74 3 F.3 d 11 75

, 11 79 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ); Uni te d St at es v. Cas ta ne da

, 43 8 F.3 d 89 1, 89 4

(8 th Cir . 20 06 ).

The re was in fact pr ob ab le cau se to arre st Ro we, al th ou gh he was no t arre st ed

th at ni gh t, as he was th e s o l e o c cu pa nt in a ve hi cl e li ke ly tra ns po rti ng a la rg e

sh ip m en t of co cai ne

. Offi cer Bi ed erm an 's ob se rv at io n th at a dr ug de al er is no t li ke ly

to al lo w an un wit ti ng or un kn owi ng in di vi du al to tra ns po rt a la rg e dr ug sh ip m en t was

rel ev an t in th is pr ob ab le cau se de te rm in at io n. The co ur t co rrec tl y he ld th at th e

pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th at th e car co nt ai ne d co cai ne

, co up le d wit h Ro we's st at us

as th e ve hi cl e's dr iv er, ga ve th e of fic ers reas on ab le gr ou nd s fo r be li ev in g th at he "h ad

kn owl ed ge of

, an d exe rci se d do m in io n an d co nt ro l ov er, th e co cai ne ." Mar y la nd v.

Pri ng le

, 54 0 U.S. 36 6, 37 2 (2 00 3) (h ol di ng th at of fic ers ha d pr ob ab le cau se to arre st

a n o c c u pa nt of a car co nt ai ni ng co cai ne be cau se it wou ld ha ve be en "en ti rel y

reas on ab le " to in fer th at he "h ad kn owl ed ge of

, an d ex erci se d do m in io n an d co nt ro l

ov er, t he co cai ne ").

The erro r in Ro w e ' s arg um en t is hi s fo cu s on th e fact th at Troo pe r Thu l

effe ct ua te d an in ve st ig at or y st op ba se d on ly on th e ex ces si ve win do w ti nt

. The st op

was no t un co ns ti tu ti on al ly exp an de d g iv en th at th e en ti re b as is for th e st op was th e

dr ug in te rd ic ti on

, de sp it e th e tro op er's al te rn at e reas on in g of fere d. Ro we's arg um en t

th at th e of

fic ers ex ceed ed th e sc op e of th ei r au th or it y an d th us co nv ert ed th e se iz ur e

in to a de fact o arre st is in ap po si te

. Ro w e c i t e s t o juri sp ru de nc e de al in g wit h

in ve st ig at iv e st op s, whi ch we do no t ha ve i n t h is cas e on th e fact s be fo re us

. Eve n

if we were to en t e r t a i n t h a t arg um en t, "[t ]his is no t th e cas e to wres tl e wit h th e

b o u n d a rie s of de te nt io ns an d arre st s," be cau se as we ha ve al read y de te rm in e d

,

pr ob ab le cau se su pp or te d th e o f f i cers ' act io ns an d th us an y arre st th at m ig ht ha ve

oc cu rred was no t un la wfu l an d wa s w a r ran te d on th es e fact s. Uni te d St at es v.

-9

-Gue va ra, 73 1 F.3 d 82 4, 83 1- 32 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). "A warra nt le ss ar r e st is co ns is te nt

wit h th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t if it is su pp or te d by pr ob ab le cau se

. . . ." Ulri ch v. Po pe

Cn ty., 71 5 F.3 d 10 54

, 10 59 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (q uo ti ng Bo rg m an v. Ked le y

, 64 6 F.3 d

51 8, 52 2- 23 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 )); Uni te d St at es v. Mar ti ne z, 46 2 F.3 d 90 3, 90 7 (8 th Ci r.

20 06 ) (h ol di ng in th e al te rn at iv e th at ev en if ha nd cu ffi ng a s u sp ect di d co nv ert th e

de te nt io n in to an arre st

, th e arre st was jus ti fie d by pr ob ab le cau se ). Acco rd in gl y

, th e

act io ns of t he off

ic ers th at ni gh t wer e su pp or te d b y pro ba bl e cau se

.

B. Gui del in es Cal cul at io n

Fi na ll y

, Ro we arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pr oc ed u ral erro r by

de nyin g hi m a m it ig at in g ro le red uc t i on pu rs ua nt to § 3B 1.2 of th e se nt en ci ng

Gui de li ne s. U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2 The di st ric t co ur t's gr an t or de ni al of a m it ig at in g ro le

red uc ti on is a fact ua l fin di ng rev ie wed fo r cl ea r e r ro r. Uni te d St at es v. Sal azar

Alem an

, 74 1 F.3 d 87 8, 88 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). "Th e de fen da nt be ars th e bu rd en of

pr ov in g th at he is en ti tl ed to th is red uc ti on ." I d

. Ro we arg ue s th at , a t be st , h e was

a d ru g c ou rie r in Hou st on Oli ve r's dr ug tra ffi ck in g op erat io n an d was les s cu lp ab le

th an hi s co co ns pi rat or s. Ro we fai ls in hi s bu rd en , h owe ve r. "[T]he Ei g h t h C irc ui t

ha s ne ve r fo un d so m eo n e ' s ro le as a co ur ie r in an d of it se lf su ffi ci en t to warra nt a

m it ig at in g ro le red uc ti on ." Id . at 8 81 . There was n o c le ar er ro r he re.

II I. CONCLUSI ON

W e affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t's de ni al of Ro we's m ot io n to su pp res s an d Ro we's

res ul ti ng sen te nc e.

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

-1 0-