The Honor able Alge non L . Marbley , United States District J udg e for the Southern District * of Ohio, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0489n.06 F iled: August 13, 2008 No. 06-4419 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. EL WOO D L EO NA RD F ARME R, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE N O R T H E R

N D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

Be fore : COOK and GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg es; and MARB L EY, District Judge. *
CO OK , Ci rc uit

Judg e . E lw oo d F arm e r a pp e a ls t he distri ct cou rt ’s de nia l of his mot ion

to
su pp re ss e vid e nc e dis c ov e re d d ur inga sear ch o f h is c ar, arguin g tha t po lic e un c on sti tut ion a lly
s t o p p edan d

d et ai n edh i m . Be cau s e a rea s o n ab l e su s p i ci o n t h at Fa rm er ’s ca r c o n t ai n edi l l ega l dru gs
su pp or te d th e sto p a

nd the de te nti on

to a wa it a c anin e un it, we a ff

ir m.
I
I n April 2006, two Be achw ood Police Depa rtment investigators staked out the Clarion Hote l in Be achw ood, Ohio, to gather e vidence in an unre lated ca se. Whil e there, t he investi g ators sawfourNo. 06-4419

United States v. Farme r

- 2 - individuals—Farme r, his son, Mark Br inkley , and Br inkley ’s g irlfriend—e ng ag e in b eh avior
co n s i s t en twi t h dru g t ra ff i ck i n g.
Fa rm er ’s gro u

p a r r i v e d a t t h e h o t el i nt wo ca rs
— a D o d ge S t ra tu s an d a D o d ge Carava n—with out-of-state lice nse plates. At c heck- in, Brinkley paid for a room in c ash, telling the h o t el cl erk

t h at h e p l an n edt o s h ar e th e ro o m o n l y wi t h h i s gi rl fr i en d
. S h o rt l y af t er ca rryi n g l u ggage inside, t h e quar

tet left the hotel in one c ar. Me anwhile, the B eac hwood investig ators obtained Br inkley ’s name f

rom the fr ont-desk cle rk and r an a database sear ch. I t reve aled B rinkley ’s re cent
arr est in North Carolina f or possessing a handgun and twelve pounds of marijuana
. About an hour a fter F arme r’s g roup left the ho t el, t hey returne d to their room. L ater , Br inkley walked to the pa

rking lot, gr abbed two white plastic bag s from the St ratus’s trunk, a nd sat in t he Cara va n. As he wa ite d, a Vo lks wa g e n a pp ro a c he d. B ri nk le y

e nte re d th e Vo lks wa g e n w ith b o t h p l a s t i c b a g s an d

e x i t e d a f e w m i nu t e s l a t e r

w i t h o n e b a g o n l y.
Af te r e xitin g the Vo lks wa g e n, B ri nk le y re e nte re d th e ho te l. Th e g ro up so on e me rg e d w ith their lug g ag e, which Fa

rmer and Br inkley loaded into the c ars. The rema ining white pla stic bagwent into Far mer’s Stratus, a s did a larg e pit bull that Brinkley fetc hed fr om the Carava n. (A t the
su pp res si on he ari ng , th e B e a c hw oo d inve sti g a tor s te sti fi e d th a t dr ugde a le rs of

te n u se pit

bu lls to g uard the drug s.) B rinkley and his g irlfriend the n drove of f in the Carava

n, with F arme r and his son tr a ili ngin t

he Str a tus
.No. 06-4419

United States v. Farme r

- 3 - As Fa rmer de parte d, the B eac hwood investig ators ca lled Ohi o St a te H ig h w a y Pa tr o l Ser g eant Terr y Helton an d reque sted that trooper s stop Far mer’s ve hicle. (The investigators focuse d on Fa rmer’ s car beca

use it c arr ied the rema ining white bag .) I n the meantime, the investig ators tailed Fa rmer a nd kept Helton appr ised of their loc ation.
I n response to the investigators’ re quest, Helton dispatched Hig hway Patrol Serg eant Ma

rk Nef f and Tr ooper Todd B elche r to stop Far mer, re laying to Ne ff the suspi ci o u s activity at the Cla ri on . In a

bo ut hal f a

n h our, the tr oo pe rs c a

ug ht u p to F arm e r’ s v e hic le . N e ff navig a te d h is vehicle be hind Far

mer’s a nd stopped him afte r observing Far mer’s right tire drift, by a “half a tire ’s worth of lin e, ” o v er the fogline—the line that sepa rate s the rig ht-hand lane from the e merg ency sh ou lde r. Ne ff

ra dio e d f or a c anin e un it.
Afte r c o ll e c ti n g F ar

me r ’ s li c e n s e an d c ar - r e n ta l a g r e e me n t ( th e y tu r n e d u p c le an ) , Nef

f
wa lke d b a c k to wh e re the B e a c hw oo d inve sti g a tor s had sto pp e d the ir ve hic le s a nd dis c us se d w ith them Fa rmer’ s conduct at the hot el. As the off icer s talked, the c anine unit ar rived. Althoug h Fa

rmer disputes the wait time, the district court c redited the testimony of multiple office rs who testified that it arrived in a

bout fifteen minutes. The d o g aler ted to drug s in Far

mer’s trunk, a

nd the re sulting
sear ch re veale d a white plastic ba g containing three kilogr ams of coc aine.
After a g rand jury

indicted Fa

rmer f or possessing coca i n e wi th the intent to dist ribute, 21 U.S. C
. § § 841(a) (1), ( b)(1) (B ), F arme r moved to suppre ss. The district court he ld an evidentiar y hear ing a nd denied the motion. Fa rmer later pl ea d ed gu i l t y but preser

ved his rig ht to appeal theNo. 06-4419

United States v. Farme r

- 4 - s u p p re s s i o nru l i n g.
II
We r e vie w the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s fa c tua l fin din g s on a mo tio n to su pp re ss f or c le ar e rr or

and its leg al conc lusions de novo. Un ite d S tates v . D av is , 430 F.3d 345, 351 ( 6th C i r. 2 0 05). Where, a s he re , th e dis tr ic t c ourt

de nie d a mot ion to su

pp re ss, we vie w the e vid e nc e in t he lig ht m os t f

a vo ra ble to the g overnme nt. Id . at 351–52.
On a pp e a l, F arm e r m a int a ins that th e polic e ill e g a lly sto pp e d h is v e hic le and ill e g a lly de ta ine d him wh ile awa iti ng the dr ug -d e te c tin g do g . Th e g ov e rnme nt c ounte rs o n t wo gr ound s. First, it contends that F arme r’s tra ffic violation—the tire -drift ove r the fog line—justi fied the stop and that re asonable suspicion arose dur ing the stop to detain Fa rmer until the ca

nine unit arrive d. Second, it argues that the police rea sonably suspected that Fa

rmer car ried drugs from the t ime he lef t the Clarion Hotel, justify ing both a n investigatory

stop and detention. Although the district court denie d Fa rmer’ s motion by

relying on his a lleg ed tra ffic violation,
we r esolve this appea l solely on the re asonable sus picion that arose from F arme r’s c onduct at the hotel. Whil e we do not ordinarily aff irm the denial of a s uppression m otion on a ground una ddresse d by the district c ourt, we may do so wher e the alternative g round is “supported by the re cord.” United States v. Buck

ingham , 4 33 F .3 d 5 08 , 5 14 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) ; se e als o United States v. J enkins , 92 F.3d 430, 436–38 (6th Cir. 1996) (affirming on alternative g round af ter holding that sear ch wa s valid evenNo. 06-4419

United States v. Farme r

- 5 - if the de fe nd ant’ s un a dd

re sse d a lle g a tio ns we re take n a s tr ue ); Un ite d S

tates v . H e nr y , 429 F.3d 603, 61 5– 16 (6 th C ir . 2 00 5) (d e c lin ing to r e mand wh e re g ov e rnme nt’ s a lte rn a tiv e argume nt w ou ld f a il
e ve n if the govern me nt’ s una dd re sse d a lle g a tio ns we re take n a s tr ue ); Da v is , 430 F.3d at 364 (Sutton, J ., concur

ring in part and dissenting in pa rt) (urg ing aff

irmance on g rounds not addre ssed by th e d is tr ic t c o u rt)
. H e r e th e f a c ts s u p p o rti n g th e p o li c e ’ s r e a s o n a b le s u s p ic io n

— F ar mer’s suspicious conduct at the hotel—wer e either addre ssed by

the district court or a

re unc ontested. See United States v. Taylor , 997 F.2d 1551, 1554–55 ( D.C. Cir. 1993) (“[W] e have upheld denials of
su pp re ssi on mot ion s a

bs e nt c le ar f

ind ing s o f f

a c t and c on c lus ion s of law wh e n ‘w e [co uld ] re a dil y aff irm the denial’ ba sed upon an a rg ument made by

the g overnme nt below an d supported by evidenc e either

uncontested or

found cr edible by

the District Court.”) ( i n t er n al citation omitted)). Acc ording ly , we pr ocee d to expl ain why the fe ature s of the conduc t observed by the police at the Clarion g ave r ise to rea sonable suspicion to stop and detain F arme r.
A
Te rry v . O hio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968), g overns tra ffic stops made on t h e basis of suspe cted criminal ac tivity . Under Te rry , a po lic e of fi c e r m ay sto p a veh ic le if sp e c if ic and art ic ula ble fa c ts lead him to rea sonably suspect that an occupa nt is committing a cr ime. Illinois v. W ardlow , 528 U. S. 119, 124 (2000); see also United States v. Sokolow , 49 0 U .S. 1, 7 ( 19 89 ) ( statin g that r e a so na ble suspicion require s “consider ably less” proof

than that nee ded for

probable cause). T o assess the validity of a Terry stop, the court conside rs the totality o f t h e ci rc u m stance s. United States v.No. 06-4419

United States v. Farme r

- 6 - Ma rti n , 289 F.3d 392, 396 ( 6th Cir. 2002).
When the Be achwo o d i n v estig ators testified at the suppression hea ring , they articulated
se ve ra l c onc re te re a so ns wh y the ir surv e ill anc e a t th e Cla

ri on le d th e m to su sp e c t th a t th e wh ite plastic bagin Far

mer’s trunk c ontained illeg al drug s. These inc luded: 1) Br inkl ey ’s b ri ef meeting in the Volkswag en, afte r which the Volkswag en’s dr iver t o o k p o s s es s i o no f t h e o t h er

wh i t e b ag; 2) the g roup’s de parture from the hotel shortly afte r the Volkswa g en tra nsaction; 3) the g ro up ’s sh or

t st ay a t th e ho te l; 4) B ri nk le y ’s c a shpa y me nt f or the ro om; 5) B ri nk le y ’s lie to t

he ho te l c le rk

a bo ut t he numbe r o f gue sts ; 6) Br inkley ’s re cent a rre st for possessing larg e amounts of dr ug s and a w eapon; 7) the g ro up ’s us e of tw o c ars lic e ns e d in

tw o d if fe re nt s tate s; 8) the larg e pit bull; and 9 ) Br i n k l ey ’s t ra n s fe rr i n g t h e p i tb u l l t o Fa rm er ’s ca r a l o n g wi t h t h e w h i t e b ag.
As the ca ses conf

irm, these un controverted fa cts g ave r ise to something more than an “unpar ticularized suspicion or ‘hunch’ ” that Fa rmer’ s vehicle c arr ied drug s. Te rry , 392 U.S. at 27. F o r e xa mple , in Un i t ed S tates v. Pere z , 440 F.3d 363 ( 6th Cir. 2006), the court he ld that police po sse sse d r e a so na

ble su sp ic ion

to s top a ve hic le pa

rt ly be c a us e its oc c up ants c omm itt e d simil ar a c ts at a hotel, suc h as swappingbag s and brief ly visiti ng rooms. Id
. a t 3 7 1

– 7 2 . I n Da v is , t he pane l found that police pe rmissibly stopped the def

endant’ s vehicle a fter obse rving th e d ef en d an t leave
a me e tin g wi th a

kn ow n d ru g de a le r c arr

yingtw o susp ic iou s pac ka g e s. 43 0 F .3 d at 35 4– 55 ; se e als oNo. 06-4419

United States v. Farme r

- 7 - United Sta te

s v . H ill , 195 F.3d 258, 270-73 (6th C ir. 1999) (c oncluding that eig ht fac tors, including a dubious explanation for a cross-c ountry trip, nervousne ss, a nd the cash renta l of a U- Haul, justified Terry de te nti on ); Un ite d S tates v . E rwi n , 155 F.3d 818, 822 (6th Cir. 1998) (e n banc) (holding that eig ht fac tors, including the driver’ s criminal record, nervousness, and lack of r eg istration, justi fied Te r r y d etention). Althoug h, as pre vious panels ac knowledg e, the e videntiary streng th this court require s to uphold vehicular Te rry stops has n o t al wa y s been c onsistent, see U nited States v. Garrido , 467 F.3d 971, 982 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (collec ting a nd compar ing c ases) , the evidenc e her e comforta bly exceeds the r easona

ble suspicion threshold.
Fa rmer c ites as s hortcoming s both that the trooper s did not directly observe the conduc t at t h e h o tel and that they

did not “even sp[eak] to the Be achw ood police prior to the stop.” True
e no ug h, Se rg e ant Ne ff fi rs t sp ok e to the B e a c hw oo d inve sti g a tor s after he sto pp e d F arm e r. B ut i n de c idi ngto m a ke the sto p, Ne ff re lie d o n d isp a tc he d in fo rm a tio n c oll e c te d b y Se rg e ant H e lto n in the c a ll f ro m th e of

fi c e rs on sta

ke ou t. I t is we ll- e sta

bli sh e d th a t r e a so na

ble su sp ic ion

“ ne e d n ot a

ri se exclusively

from [an offic er’ s] own direct observations.” Dorsey v . Barber , 5 17 F .3 d 3 89 , 3 95 (6 th Cir. 2008). Rather, “ i t ca n b e d erived from . . . dispatch infor mation[ ] and directions from other office rs.” Id . I n United States v. He nsley , 4 69 U. S. 2 21 (1 98 5) , th e Sup re me Cou rt c on fi rm e d th is “commonsense ” proposition when it held that off icer s from one jurisdiction c o uld rely on a fly er issued by another jurisdiction—which only descr ibed the wante d suspect and the date a nd location of his alleg ed crime—so long as the fir st jurisdiction i ssued the fly er ba sed on re asonable suspicion. Id . at 232. Her e, the investigators, throug h Helton, t old Nef f detailed information about Farme r andNo. 06-4419

United States v. Farme r

- 8 - his suspicious acts at t he hotel. B ut even a ssuming that the B eac hwood investig ators only reque sted that the Hig hway

Patrol stop Far

mer’s ve hicle, that suff

ices unde r Hensley

beca use the B eac hwood investigators themselves had r easona ble suspicion.
Mo re ov e r, the re is no dou bt that the po lic e inv e sti g a te d the ir su sp ic ion s in a r e a so na ble tim e and throug h “minimally

intrusive” mea

ns. United States v. Place , 462 U.S. 696, 706 (1983). Ne ff radioe d for a canine unit immediately afte r st opping Far mer’s ve hicle, and the district court cr edited the po lic e of

fi c e rs ’ c on sis te nt t e sti mony that th e c anin e un it a

rr ive d in a bo ut f if te e n mi nu te s. Pr e c e de nt fi rm ly e sta

bli sh e s tha t a det e nti on of thi s len g th to all ow a dr ug -d e te c tin g do g to a

rr ive is a per missibl e mea

ns of investig ating suspicious c onduct during a Te rry sto p. F or e xamp le , in

Da v is , the pa ne l a pp ro ve d th e po lic e ’s d e te nti on of a c ar f or ha lf an h our t o a llo w a

dr ug -s nif fi ngdo g to arri v e, stating that the dog ’s use “ was a minimally

intrusive means of inve stigating whe ther the office rs’ suspicions that [the defenda nt’s vehicle] containe d narc otics were valid.” 430 F .3d at 355. Simi larly , in United States v. J ohnson , 267 F. App’ x 412 (6th Cir. 2008), the cour t held that “a fo rt y -t hr e e min ute [de te nti on ] is a

re a so na ble pe ri od of tim e to a llo w po lic e to c on ta c t a c anin e un it, wait for its ar

rival, and ha

ve a dogchec k for the pr esenc e of na rcotics.” Id . at 415.
Ac c or din g ly , w e fi nd

that th e po lic e pe rm iss ibl y sto pp e d and de ta ine d F arm e r to i nv e sti g a te their re asonable suspicion that he ca rried dr ug s in his vehicle.
BNo. 06-4419

United States v. Farme r

- 9 - Havingconclude d that the district court prope rly reje cted F arme r’s Fo u rth Amendment challeng e, we turn to Fa

rmer’ s claim that the g overnme nt violated his due proce ss rig hts by failing to preser ve ra dio communications relate d to his arre st. Far m er secur ed a district c ourt order
re qu ir ingthe g ov e rnme nt t o p re se rv e the se re c or ds be c a us e he be lie ve d the y wo uld de mon str a te his de te nti on ’s unre a so na

ble le ng th. B ut b e c a

us e the Un ited S tate s A tto rn e y ’s Of fi c e fa ile d to communicate the order

to the police, both B eachw o o d an d t h e Hig hway Patrol era sed the re cords afte r thirty

day s, as is their routine.
To de mon str a te a

du e pr oc e ss v iol a tio n b a se d o n t he g ov e rnme nt’ s f a ilure to p re se rv e thi s “potentially

exculpatory ” evide nce, F arme r must show that: (1) the g overnme nt acted in bad fa ith; (2) the e x culpatory

value of the evidenc e was appar ent befor e its de struction; and (3) he could not obtain compar able e vidence by other re asonably

available means. United States v. J obson , 102 F.3d 2 1 4 , 2 1 8 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 6 ) ( d i s t i l l i n g Arizona v. Y oungblood , 488 U.S. 51, 56–58, (1988)).
At the least, Fa

rmer fails to e stablish ba d faith—i.e., “ officia l animus” or a “ conscious ef fort to suppress exculpatory

evidenc e.” Jobson , 1 0 2 F. 3 d at 2 1 8 (q u o t i n g Cal ifo rn ia v. Tro mb e tta , 467 U.S. 479, 488 (1984)). B oth police uni t s era sed their r adio communications under routine depar tment policy , and all office rs i nvolved consist ently testified t hat they did not know about the prese rvation orde r. More over, the g overnme nt expl ained its failure to notify the depa rtments: the
case transfe rre d betwee n prosec utors and the first neg lige ntly failed to inf orm the second a

bout the order . The district court accepted the office rs’ testimony and the pr osecutor’ s expl anation, andNo. 06-4419

United States v. Farme r

- 10 - Fa rmer f ails to of fer any thing on a ppeal to ca st doubt on the district court’s conc lusion. See J obson , 102 F.3d at 218 (finding no due proce ss violation in g overnme nt’s failure to preve nt destruction of a tape wher e g overnme nt was “ne g lige nt, perha ps even g rossl y n egl i g ent” but did not act in bad faith). Although F arme r conte nds that the g overnme nt’s failure to follow the evidenc e-pr eser vation order al o n e d em o nstrates ba d faith, such a brea ch ca

n stem from a g ood-fa ith mis take a s well as something more sinister. Of cour se, the g overnmen t ’s fa ilure to comply exposed it t o the district court’s a uthority to sanction that non-complianc e, eve n in the ab sence of bad f aith or the other Y oungblood fac tors. See Fe d. R. Crim. P
. 16(d)( 2)(D) (authorizing a district court to “e nter a ny . . . order that is just under the cir cu m s t an ce s ” to punish viol ations of its discovery order s). B ut the district court chose not to ex erc ise that authority here
. See U

nited States v. Atisha , 8 0 4 F.2d 920, 92 4 ( 6th Cir . 1 98 6) (“ [Ev e n if

the g ov e rnme nt v iol a te d [a dis c ov e ry

or de r], it w ou ld s til l be wi thi n the d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s d is c r e ti o n to d e te r mi n e w h a t th e a

p p r o p r iate s an c ti o n

— s u c h a s e xc lu d ing the evidenc e or a

war ding a continuance or mistrial—should be.”).

III
F or the se re a so ns , w e a ff

ir m.