FI L ED
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

EL EVENTH CI RCUI T Sept. 11, 2009

THOMAS K. KAH

N
CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

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

No. 0 9- 10 75 8

Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

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

D.C. Dock et No. 0 8- 00 41 3- CR-T-3 0- TGW

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us

LONNIE DA VIS, JR

.,

Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
(Sep te m be r 11 , 20 09 )

Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:

The Gov ern m en t ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r gr an ti n g th e Defen da nt

Lon ni e Dav is ’s m ot io n to su pp res s ph y si cal ev id en ce se iz ed as a res ul t of a se arch ofD a v is ’s ve hi cl e aft er a tra ffi c ci ta ti on was is su ed

. The Gov ern m en t co nt en ds th a t

po li ce of fic ers ha d reas on ab le su sp ic io n to pr ol on g th e t r a f f i c s to p fo r a sh or t ti m e

an d th at

, th eref

or e, th e us e of a can in e un it in th e s e a r c h of Dav is ’s car was no t

un co ns ti tu ti on al

.

D av is arg ue s th at th e Gov ern m en t waiv ed it s rig ht to ap pe al t h e o r d e r

su pp res si ng ev id en ce be cau se th e Gov ern m en t fai le d to ob ject aft er th e di st ric t co ur t

m ad e it s ru li ng

. And , Da vi s arg ue s, ev en if t he Gov ern m en t d id no t wai ve it s rig ht

to ap pe al th e su pp res si on ord er, t he di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in gr an ti ng th e m ot io n

to su pp res s be cau se t h e o ffi cers di d no t ha ve reas on ab le su sp ic io n to pr ol on g th e

tra ffi c st op be y on d th e ti m e at whi ch th e tra ffi c ci ta ti on was is su ed

. Dav is do es no t

arg ue th at th e in it ia l st op was im pr op er, on ly th at he was un co ns ti tu ti on al ly de ta in ed

aft er th e tra ffi c st op sh ou ld ha ve be en co m pl et ed an d th at th e ev id en ce su pp res se d

res ul te d fr om

th e u nc on st it ut io na l d el ay

.

W e ad dr es s Dav is ’s pr oc ed ur al arg um en t fir st

. W e ho ld th at th e Gov ern m en t

di d no t waiv e it s rig ht to ap pe al th e su pp res si on or de r. As lo ng as a ti m el y ob jecti on

ap pe ars in th e reco rd

, “ Onc e th e co ur t mak e s a de fin it iv e ru li ng on th e reco rd

ad m it ti ng or e xc lu di ng ev id en ce, ei th er at or b efo re t ria l, a pa rty n eed no t re ne w an

ob je c t i o n o r of

fer of pr oo f to pr es erv e a cl ai m of erro r fo r ap pe al .” Fed

. R. Evi d.

10 3( a). The reco rd he re co nt ai ns th e Gov ern m en t’s si xt een -p ag e writ te n res po ns e in

2op po si ti on to Dav is ’s m ot io n to su pp res s, la y in g o u t th e fact s an d le ga l su pp or t fo r

th e Gov ern m en t’s po si ti on th at th e ev id en ce is ad m is si bl e. (R.1 -1 6.) Thi s writ te n

op po si ti on pr es erv ed th e Gov ern m en t’s rig ht to ap pe al th e or de r gr an ti ng th e m ot io n

to su pp res s.

N ex t, we co ns id er th e Gov ern m en t’s su bs ta nt iv e arg um en t th at th e ev id e n c e

was erro ne ou sl y su pp res se d. The gr an t of a m ot io n to su pp res s ev id en ce is rev ie wed

as a m ix ed qu es ti on of la w an d fact

. U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Perk in s , 34 8 F.3 d 96 5, 96 9

(1 1t h Ci r. 20 03 ). Ord in ari ly, th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng s of fact are rev ie wed fo r cl ear

erro r an d th e ap pl ic at io n of th e la w to th e fact s is co ns id ered de no vo

. Id

. Here, th e

di st ric t co ur t he ld no ev id en ti ary he ari ng bu t as su m ed th at th e fact s pr es en te d in th e

Gov ern m en t’s writt en op po si ti on to th e m ot io n to su pp res s were tru e. And

, ne it he r

pa rty ob jecte d to th is as su m

pt io n as to th e fact s. Thu s, we rev ie w on ly th e ap pl ic at io n

of se arch an d se iz ur e la w to th e fact s s e t f or th in th e Gov ern m en t’s writ te n

op po si ti on , whi ch ap pe ars in th e rec or d a t R.1 -1 6, t o t he m ot io n t o s up pr es s.

The Fo ur th Am en dm en t pr ot ect s in di vi du al s fro m un reas on ab le se arch es an d

se iz ur es . U.S. Con st . am en d. IV. “ A tra ffi c st op is a se iz ur e wit hi n th e m ean in g o f

th e Fo ur th Am e n d men t.” Uni te d St at es v. Pur cel l

, 23 6 F.3 d 12 74

, 12 77 (1 1t h Ci r.

20 01 ). “ Ord in ari ly, whe n a ci ta ti on or warn in g ha s be en is su ed an d al l reco rd ch eck s

ha ve be en co m

pl et ed an d co m e ba ck cl ean , th e le gi ti m at e in ve st ig at iv e pu rp os e of th e

3tra ffi c st op is fu lfi ll ed .” Uni te d St at es v. Si mms , 38 5 F.3 d 13 4 7

, 1 3 5 3 (1 1t h Ci r.

20 04 )

. H o wev er, an of

fic er m ay de ta in an in di vi du al be y on d th e pu rp os es of th e

tra ffi c st op if th ere is “ art ic u l a b l e s u sp ic io n il le ga l act iv it y ha s oc cu rred or is

oc cu rri ng ” or if th e dr iv er co ns en ts

. Uni te d St at es v. Pru it t

, 17 4 F.3 d 12 15

, 12 20

(1 1t h Ci r. 19 99 ). Arti cu la bl e su sp i c i o n mu s t be dr awn fro m sp eci fic fact s, an d

rat io na l in fere nc es th eref ro m , m eas ur ed un de r th e to ta li ty o f th e ci rcu m st an ces an d

in li gh t of th e of

fic er’s kn owl ed ge

. U

n i t e d S t a t es v. Ta

pi a , 91 2 F.2 d 13 67

, 13 70

(1 1t h Ci r. 19 90 ). Offi cers can no t rel y on a m ere “ hu nc h,” bu t m us t po in t to sp eci fic

fact or s th at le d th em to su sp ect ot he r le ga l wro ng do in g. Uni te d St at es v. Arvi zu , 53 4

U.S. 26 6, 2 74 -7 5, 1 22 S. Ct. 7 44 , 75 0- 51 (20 02 ).

W ha t is at is su e he re is th e de te nt io n fo r a sh or t pe rio d of ti m e to ha ve a can in e

un it br ou gh t t o t he sc en e to se arch fo r dr ug s. The do g aler te d on th e ve hi cl e wit hi n

a few m in ut es aft er arri vi ng at th e sc en e. W e co nc lu de t ha t th e of fic ers ha d

r eas on ab le su sp ic io n su pp or ti ng th is sh or t de te nt io n, an d th us th e de te n t i o n w a s

reas on ab le an d c on st it ut io na l.

Here, th e in it ia l tra ffi c st op was m ad e be cau se th e of fic er was su sp ic io us of a

ve hi cl e of th e type Dav is was dr iv in g em erg in g fro m a se ni or ci ti zen s’ co m m un it y

la te in th e ni gh t; be cau se th e area was kn own to hi m to be a hi gh cri m e area ; be cau se

th e w i n d o w t i n t on Dav is ’s ve hi cl e was so da rk th at th e of fic er co ul d no t se e th e

4dr iv er an d th e of fic er be li ev ed th at ti nt to be in vi ol at io n of Fl or id a tra ffi c la ws; an d

be cau se , whe n th e of

fic er pu ll ed up ne xt to t h e v e h i c l e , Dav is m ad e an ab ru pt an d

sh or t de to ur on to a si de ro ad

, res um in g hi s or ig in al pa th of tra ve l aft er i t a p p e a red

th at th e of

fic er ha d le ft. Afte r t h e o f f i c e r si gn al ed fo r Dav is to pu ll ov er, Dav is

de la y ed in do in g so , pa ss in g up two op po rtu ni ti es to pu ll to th e si de of th e ro ad th en

pa rk in g in a pa rk in g lo t in a m an ne r th at rai se d th e of fic er’s su sp ic io ns th at Dav is was

se ek in g to m ai nt ai n th e op ti on to ex it

. Onc e th e of fic er be ga n ta lk in g wit h Dav is

, he

en co un te red ad di ti on al reas on s to be su sp ic io us th at Dav is was in vo lv ed in cri m in al

act iv it y . Th e di sc rep an cy be twee n th e ad dr es s on Davi s’s d riv er’s l ic en se an d h is

in it ia l st at em en t of th e lo cat io n of hi s res id en ce was su sp ic io us , es pe ci al ly in li gh t of

th e fac t th at he was a reg is te red sex off en de r who was re qu ire d b y law t o re po rt h is

res id en ce. Als o su sp ic io us was th e fact th at Davi s cl ai m ed he ha d jus t dr op pe d hi s

br ot he r of

f bu t di d no t kn ow t he na m e of th e st reet on whi ch he le ft hi s bro th er. As

a res ul t of a ro ut in e ba ck gr ou nd ch eck

, th e of fic er le arn e d t h a t b ot h Dav is an d hi s

pa ss en ge r ha d cri m in al hi st or ie s. The n, Dav is co ns en te d to a se arch of th e tru nk bu t

ei th er de ni ed or rev ok ed co ns en t fo r a se arch of th e in te rio r of hi s ve hi cl e. And

, whe n

an ot he r of

fic er arri ve d, th at of

fic e r r e p o r t e d th at he ha d be en pr es en t whe n Dav is

r e c e nt ly was st op pe d in th e sa m e car an d arre st ed fo r po ss es si on of crac k c o c a i n e

.

Viewi ng th e ci rcu m st an ces as a who le

, th e po li ce offi cers ha d reas on ab le su sp ic io n

5th at Dav is was in vo lv ed in cri m in al act iv it y

. The reco rd su gg es ts th at th ey de ta in ed

hi m fo r no m or e th an ab ou t te n m in ut es whi le th ey wait ed fo r a can in e un it to arri ve

.

Tha t d et en ti on was n ot un reas on ab le

.

Bec au se th e de te nt io n was no t un co ns ti tu ti on al

, we va cat e th e c o ur t’s

su pp res si on ord er an d re m an d t o t he di st ric t co ur t fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

VACATED AN D REMANDED.

6