FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 22, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 67 5

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 9- cr-0 00 48 -WH A-TFM-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ver su s RICAR DO RENDON, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el la nt .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 22 , 20 12 ) Befo re BARKETT an d HULL, Cir cu itJu dg es , andHINKLE, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * BARKETT, Circ ui t Jud ge : Ri card o R en do n app eal s h is co nv ic ti on , ent eredup on a co nd it io na l g ui lt y

Honora ble Robert L . Hinkle, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Florida , sitti ngby

designation.pl ea, fo r on e co un t o f po ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te co cai ne invi ol at io n o f

21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) . Spe ci fic al ly, he ch al le ng es th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n t o s up pr es s ev id en ce tha t was sei zeddu rin g t he warran tl es s s earc h o f hi s tra ct or -tr ai le r by sev eral st at e law enf or cem en t o ffi cers aft er a dru g d et ect in g can in e al ert edto th e p res en ce o f il le ga l dru gs . Ren do n a rg ue s tha t the off ic ers la ck edreas on ab le su sp ic io n t o d et ai n h im fol lo win g t he co nc lu si on of h is co m m erci al ve hi cl e in sp ect io n, an d t he refo re, the off ic ers ’ us e o f a dru g d et ect in g can in e an d n on -co ns en t, warr an tl es s s earc h o f hi s tract or -tr ai le r vi ol at edhi s Fo urthAm en dm en t ri gh ts . Alte rn at iv el y , he a rg ue s tha t ev enif h is co nt in ue d de te nt io n was no t u nl awfu l, the di st ric t co urt erredinco nc lu di ng th atth e u se of th e can in e, whi chale rte d o ffi cers to th e co cai ne inhi s tract or -tr ai le r, was n ot ta in te d b y off ic ers ’ pr io r un la wfu l s earc h o f hi s tract or -tr ai le r. W e aff irm. I. Back gr ou nd Whi le dri vi ng hi s tract or -tr ai le r on I-6 5 i n M on tg om ery Co un ty, Alab am a, Ren do n was st op pe d b y

anAlab am a st at e tr oo pe r, Hen ry Co x, fo r pu rp os es of co nduc ti ng a co m

m erci al ve hi cl e in sp ect io n. Co x t es ti fie d t ha t g en eral ly he co nduc te d t wo co m

m erci al tru ck

in sp ect io ns du rin g h is sh iftan d t ha t Re nd on ’s was th e se co ndon e o f th atpa rti cu la r da y . As pa rt o f th e in sp ect io n, Re nd on pr ov id edCo x wi thhi s driv er’s l ic en se , veh ic le reg is tra ti on , pro of of l iabi li ty 2in su ran ce, an d l og bo ok . He exp la in edth athe was tran sp orti ng on io ns th atha d

be enlo ad edtwo da y s ea rli er, i n P ha rr, Tex as . Whi le Co x was pre pa rin g the in sp ect io n re po rt, h e as ke d R en do n s ev eral qu es ti on s ab ou t the bi ll of l ad in g fo r th e lo ad , th e num

be r of pa ll et s i n t he lo ad , it s d es ti na ti on , hi s v ari ou s s to ps in so ut he rnTexa s, i nc lu di ng th os e in Edi nb ur gh , Pha rr, an d Gan ad a, an d o th er qu es ti on s p ert ai ni ng to th e lo adan d h is jou rn ey tra ns po rti ng it . Co x t he n re tu rn edRen do n’s driv er’s l ic en se an d g av e h im a co py of th e rep ort i nd ic at in g s ev eral vi ol at io ns . He th ento ldRen do n t ha t h e was free to go , bu t s ai d h e h adso m e ad di ti on al qu es ti on s an d a sk edab ou t the pre se nc e o f il le ga l drug s i n h is tra ct or -tr ai le r an d s ou gh t Re nd on ’s perm is si onto search hi s trai le r, whi chRen do n re fu se d. Co x t he n t ol d R en do n t ha t al th ou gh he ha d arig htto say

“ no ”, if he refu se d, Co x wo ul d c al l i n adru g s ni ffi ng can in e an d R en do n th ereupo n s ig ne d t he sea rch co ns en t fo rm . Co x n on ethe le ss cal le d Off ic er Ch arl es And ers on to bri ng hi s ca ni ne pa rtn er, Luc a, to co nduc t the can in e sn iff . Prio r to Luca ’s arri va l, an ot he r st at e tro op er, Ch ris Fau lk , arri ve d a t the sce ne . Cox an d F au lkwalk edaro un d t he tra il er i ns pe ct in g i t fr om

th e o ut si de an d t he n a ls o e nt eredth e tr ai le r. Duri ng th e cu rs ory sea rch of t he in te rio r no th in g was fou nd , bu t, wh il e o bs erv in g t he ex te rio r of th e tr ai le r, th e o ffi cers no ti cedne w bo lt s o n t he refri ge rat io n u ni t wh ic h 3pr ot ru de d o ut si de of the tra il er. Whe n An de rs on arri ve d, h e, to o wal ke d aro un d

th e in te rio r of

th e tr ai le r an d t he n l edLucaaro un d t he ou ts id e o f th e tr ai le r. Whe n Luc a rea ch edth e o ut si de of t he refri ge rat io n u ni t, h e al ert ed . Pack ag es , whi ch were ev en tu al ly det erm in edto be co cai ne , were fo un d i n t he refri ge rat io n uni t. Ren do n s ou gh t the supp res si on of t he co cai ne an d o th er ev id en ce s ei zed du rin g t he off

ic ers ’ se archon th e b as is th athi s co nt in ue d d et en ti on by Cox was un la wfu l an d t ha t the off

ic ers lac ke d p ro babl e cau se to co nduc t the sea rch of t he in te rio r of

hi s trai le r. Afteranev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t he m ot io n a ndRen do n e ve ntua ll y en te reda co nd it io na l p le a o f gu il ty, pr es erv in g h is rig htto ap pe al th e ev id en ti ary ru li ng . II. Dis cu ss io n Ren do n d oe s n otch al le ng e th e le ga li ty of Co x’s i ni ti al st op to co nduc t the co m m erci al ve hi cl e in sp ect io n a ndag rees th athe was l awfu ll y de ta in edby Cox fo r th atpu rp os e up unt il th e ti m e th atCo x a dv is edhi m th athe was fr ee t o g o a nd ha d re tu rn edRen do n’s i de nt ifi cat io n d oc um en ts . Howev er, wh enCo x p ro ceed ed 1 to askRen do n que st io ns ab ou t the pre se nc e o f il le ga l dru gs inhi s trai le r, bo th pa rti es ag ree t ha t Re nd on was s ub ject t o a n i nv es ti ga to ry

de te nt io n fo r pu rp os es of

Alabama law provide s for the a dministrative inspec tion of commerc ial vehicles w ithout 1 the nec essity

of obtaininga wa

rra nt. See Ala. Code § 32-9A-3.

4th e Fo urthAm en dm en t. Whatth e p art ie s d is pu te is : (1 ) whe th er Re nd on ’s

co nt in ui ng de te nt io n b y

Co x fr om

th is po in t fo rwardwas l awfu l; (2) whet he r th e en try andsea rch of t he tra il er b y Co x, Faul k a ndAnd ers onwas u nl awfu l an d, i f so , (3) whet he r th e al ertby Luc a to th e il le ga l dru gs was t ai nt edby the un la wfu l en try andsea rch . A. Reas on ab le Su sp ic io n t o Det ai n R en do n “ The Fo urth Am en dm en t p ro hi bi ts ‘ un reas on ab le sea rch es an d s ei zu res ’ by th e Gov ern m en t, an d i ts pro te ct io ns ex te ndto bri ef i nv es ti ga to ry st op s o f pe rs on s orve hi cl es th atfal l s ho rt o f tr ad it io na l arres t.” Un it edSta te s v . Arvi zu , 53 4 U.S. 26 6, 2 73 (20 02 ). A po li ce o ffi cer m ay st op , det ai n a ndbri efl y

qu es ti on a ci ti zen if th e o ffi cer “ ob se rv es un us ua l co nduc t wh ic h l ead s h im reas on ab ly to co nc lu de in li gh t o f hi s ex pe rie nc e th atcri m in al act iv it y m ay be afo ot .” Terry

v. Oh io , 39 2 U.S. 1, 3 0 (1 96 4) . A court m us t l oo k a t the “ ‘tot al it y

of t he cir cum st an ces ’ of

each cas e to see whethe r th e d et ai ni ng off ic er h as a ‘part ic ul ari zedan d o bjec ti ve ba si s’ fo r su sp ect in g l eg al wron gd oi ng .” Arvi zu , 53 4 U.S. at27 3. At the he ari ng on Ren do n’s m ot io n t o s up pr es s, Co x t es ti fie d t o s ev eral pi eces of i nf

orm at io n g athe reddu rin g t he co m m erci al ve hi cl e in sp ect io n whi chhe ass ert edsupp orte d h is reas on ab le su sp ic io n t ha t Re nd on was e ng ag edin il le ga l ac ti vi ty. Loo ki ng at t he to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , we fin d t he re was 5su ffi ci en t i nf orm at io n t o c on cl ud e th atCo x h ada “pa rti cu la riz edan d o bjec ti ve ba si s” forsu sp ect in g l eg al wron gd oi ng . Altho ug h we a gr ee wi thRen do n t ha t h is pre se nc e in area s al le ge d t o b e so ur ces of d ru g t raff

ic ki ng an d h is ne rv ou s d em ean orare n otsu ffi ci en t, ei th er se pa rat el y

or t og ethe r, to rai se anob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e su sp ic io n t ha t warran ts fu rth er d et en ti on , see Uni te d S ta te s v . Perk in s, 3 48 F.3d96 5, 9 71 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ); Uni te d S ta te s v . Bal la rd , 57 3 F .2d91 3, 9 16 (5t h C ir. 1 97 8) , th ere wer e su ffi ci en t 2 ad di ti on al reas on s tha t Co x i de nt ifi edth at , when co ns id eredinth ei r to ta li ty, ad equa te ly giv e ri se to reas on ab le su sp ic io n. Th os e fac ts in cl ud e: (1) Ren do n’s la ckof kno wled ge of t he nu m be r of pa ll et s i n h is lo adev enth ou gh m os t o wne rop erat or s kno w th is in fo rm at io n; (2) Ren do n’s l ackof kno wled ge of t he lo cat io n of hi s fi na l d el iv ery; (3) Ren do n’s i nabi li ty to ex pl ai n t he in co ns is te nc y inhi s st at em en ts ab ou t wh ere h e lo ad edth e o ni on s. He o rig in al ly stat edhe di d s o i n Ph arr, Tex as as h is lo g b oo ks in di cat ed , bu t l at er wh enask edab ou t the reas on for th e am ou ntof d ownti m e in Gana do , Texa s, h e res po nd edth atitto oka lo ng ti m e to lo adth e o ni on s; (4) de sp it e h av in g b een off du ty for anen ti re d ay

an d aha lf i n

In Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), the 2 Eleventh Circuit adopte d as bindingprec edent a ll Fifth Circuit decisions hande d down prior to the close of

business on September 30, 1981. 6Edi nb ur g, Tex as , pri orto lo ad in g t he on io ns inPh arr, Tex as , andth endri vi ng on ly

fo urho ur s, Re nd on cla im s t o h av e st op pe d fo r te n h ou rs of r es t, ev enth ou gh he co ul d h av e co nt in ue d driv in g fo r anad di ti on al fou r ho ur s; (5) Co x’s ex pe rie nt ia l kn owl ed ge th atm os t o wne r-o pe rat or s driv e fo r as m an y ho ur s as po ss ib le on ce th ey ha ve lo ad edth ei r truc ks be cau se th atis ho w th ey m ak e m on ey ; (6 ) Ren do n’s nu m ero us ap pa ren tl y

un expl ai ne d s to ps , eve n p rio r to lo ad in g t he on io ns , inarea s in so ut h Tex as kn ownfordru g t raff ic ki ng . 3 Acco rd in gl y , inli gh t o f th e to ta li ty of th e sp eci fic cir cu m st an ces inth is cas e, we co nc lu de th atCo x’s co nt in ue d d et en ti on of R en do n fo ll owi ng th e co nc lu si on of t he co m

m erci al ve hi cl e in sp ect io n was lawf ul forpu rp os es of t he Fo urthAm en dm en t. B. Pro babl e Cau se to Sear chth e Tract or -Trai le r Alt ern at iv el y , Ren do n a rg ue s tha t, ev enif C ox ha d re as on ab le su sp ic io n t o de ta in hi m , hi s co ns en t t o s earc h was co erce d a ndth e in it ia l en try int o a ndsea rch of hi s tract or -tr ai le r by Cox an d F au lkan d t he n b y And ers on was i ll eg al . W e ag ree wi th th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s con cl us io n t ha t the in te rio r se archof the
Rendon argues that we should not credit any of these f acts be cause Cox ’s testimony is 3 not cre dible beca

use of a lleg ations of misconduct unre lated to this case. T he re cord c ontains no evidenc e of a

ny connec tion between Cox’s alleg ed misconduct a nd cre dibility

issues and we see no reve rsible er

ror in the mag istrate’s c redibility deter mination. 7tra ct or -tr ai le r by the off ic ers was u nl awfu l b ecau se , as the go ve rn m en t co nc ed es , Ren do n’s co ns en t was co erce d a ndno t v ol un ta ril y gi ve n. C. Pro babl e Cau se to Sear chBas edon th e Can in e Ale rt Fi na ll y , we tu rnto th e que st io n o f whe th er the un la wfu l s earc h t ai nt edth e can in e al ert . The Supr em e Co urt h as he ldth atth e u se of acan in e to sn iff th e ex te rio r of

a ve hi cl e fo r pu rp os es of d ru g d et ect io n d oe s n otim pl ic at e th e Fo urth Am en dm en t i f itis co nduc te d dur in g t he co ur se of alawf ul tra ffi c st op . Ill in oi s v . Cab al le s, 5 43 U.S. 40 5, 4 09 (20 05 ). Mo reo ve r, ou r ci rcu itha s h el d tha t the ale rt of a drug -tr ai ne d c an in e to th e p res en ce o f drug s i n ave hi cl e g iv es ris e to pro babl e cau se to sea rch th atve hi cl e. Uni te d S ta te s v . Tam ari , 45 4 F .3d12 59 , 12 65 (11 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Ren do n arg ue s tha t, i n t hi s ca se , th e can in e sn iff whi chale rte d t he of fic ers to th e p res en ce o f il le ga l dru gs was t ai nt edby the off ic ers ’ pr io r un la wfu l de te nt io n a ndsea rch es whi choc cu rreddu rin g t he 20 m in ut es be twee n t he de te nt io n a ndth e can in e al ert . 4 Ourcir cu itha s s ta te d t ha t “ [t]he ex cl us io na ry rul e se rv es to de te r po li ce m is co nduc t b y

pre ve nt in g t he in tro du ct io n o f ev id en ce o bt ai ne d t hr ou gh po li ce
The initial stop in thi s case occur red at 4:07 pm and the parties a gree that the lawf ul 4 detention for the routine vehic le inspection lasted until 4:34 pm. Luca a rrived at 4:52 pm and aler ted to the drug s shortly

there afte r. 8il le ga li ty.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Vird en , 48 8 F .3d13 17 , 13 22 (11 thCir . 20 07 ) (ci ti ng

Nix v. Will ia m s, 4 67 U.S. 43 1, 4 42 –4 3 (1 98 4) ). In e xp la in in g wh ethe r po li ce il le ga li ty w il l s up po rt t he supp res si on of e vi de nc e, th e Supr em e Co urt h as st at ed th atth e ap pr op ria te qu es ti on to askis “ whe th er, g ran ti ng est ab li sh m en t o f th e pr im ary il le ga li ty, th e ev id en ce t o wh ic h i ns tantob jecti on is m ad e h as be enco m e atby exp lo it at io n o f th atil le ga li ty or in st eadby m ean s s uf fic ie nt ly dis ti ng ui sh ab le to be pu rg edof t he pri m ary ta in t.” Won g S un v. Un it edSta te s, 3 71 U.S. 47 1, 4 88 (1 96 3) . W e h av e id en ti fie d t hr ee ci rcu m st an ces inwhi chth e ev id en ce ca n b e sa id to ha ve be enob ta in edby m ean s “ su ffi ci en tl y di st in gu is habl e” fr om

th e in it ia l il le ga li ty suc h t ha t s up pr es si on is no t n eces sa ry . Fi rs t, the ch al le ng edev id en ce wi ll be adm is si bl e und er the “ in ev it ab le di sc ov ery” do ctrin e if itin ev it ab ly or ul ti m at el y wou ld ha ve be endi sc ov eredby lawfu l m ean s wi th ou t re fere nc e to th e p ol ic e m is co nduc t. Se co nd , un de r th e “ in de pe nd en t s ou rce” do ctrin e, th e ch al le ng edev id en ce wi ll be adm is si bl e if itde riv edfro m

a la wfu l so ur ce i nd ep en de ntof t he il le ga l co nduc t. Th ird , th e ch al le ng ed ev id en ce wi ll be adm is si bl e und er the “ at te nu at io n” do ctrin e if th e cau sa l co nn ect io n b etweenth e co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n a ndth e di sc ov ery of

th e ev id en ce h as be co m e so att enua te d a s t o d is si pa te th e ta in t. Uni te d S ta te s v . Terzad o- Mad ru ga , 89 7 F .2d10 99 , 11 13 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ) (i nt ern al ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . Here, we h av e h el d t ha t the de te nt io n b y Co x was no t i ll eg al as i t was

9supp orte d b y reas on ab le su sp ic io n. Th us , th ere i s n o t ai ntatt rib ut ab le to Co x’s co nt in ue d d et en ti on . W it h re fere nc e to th e il le ga l en try int o t he tra il er b y Co x, Fau lkan d An de rs on , we see no ba si s t o c on cl ud e th atLuca ’s sea rch was t ai nt ed . Fi rs t, n ot hi ng was u nc ov ereddurin g any of th e in te rio r in sp ect io ns . The ev id en ce th atRen do n i s s eek in g t o h av e supp res se d was no t d is co ve redby any of t he th ree of fic ers du rin g t he ir i ll eg al sea rch es of h is tra ct or -tr ai le r an d we c anfin d n o co nn ect io n b etweenth e in te rio r se arch es an d t he ul ti m at e al ertby Luc a. Ren do n arg ue s tha t the off

ic ers no ti cedne w bo lt s o n t he refri ge rat io n u ni t wh il e th ey were in si de th e tr ai le r. Howev er, the ev id en ce re fle ct s tha t the refri ge rat io n u ni t pr ot ru de d o n t he ou ts id e o f th e tr ai le r an d i t was du rin g t he ir e xt eri or ob se rv at io n of th e tr ai le r th atth ey

no ti cedth e n ew bo lt s. An de rs on ’s dep lo y m en t o f Luc a aro un d t he ex te rio r of

th e tr act or -tr ai le r was co nduc te d i n arou ti ne m an ne r an d Luc a al ert edto th e ex te rio r po rti on of t he refri ge rat io n u ni t. Acco rd in gl y , bec au se th e o ng oi ng tra ffi c st op was l awfu l, an d the us e o f a can in e to pe rfo rm

anex te rio r sn iff

fordru gs du rin g t ha t traff ic st op was n ot ta in te d, the sea rch fordru gs inth e lo cat io n o f th e al ertwas p erm is si bl e. See Cab al le s, 5 43 U.S. at 4 09 . It was no t erro r to adm itth is ev id en ce u nd er ei th er the

“ in ev it ab le di sc ov ery” or “ in de pe nd en t s ou rce” do ctrin e. AFFIRMED. 10