FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 15, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT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- 13 02 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cr-0 02 54 -EAK-EAJ-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ROBERT STEVEN HARRELSON, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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 F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 15 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: On t he ni gh t o f Mar ch 26 , 20 10 , off ic ers of t he Hard ee Co un ty (Flo rid a)Sh eri ff’s dru g t as k fo rce t eam , act in g o n i nf orm at io n p ro vi de d b y

th e DeSo to Co un ty (Flo rid a) Sh eri ff’s o ffi ce t o t he effe ctth atRo be rt Ha rrel so n was he ad ed fo r Hard ee Co un ty in h is tru ckto de li ve r m etha m ph et am in e to a su sp ect eddru g tra ffi ck er, s to pp edHarrel so n’s v eh ic le , sea rch edit , fou nda la rg e ro le of c urren cy (o n Harrel so n’s p ers on ) an d, i n azip pe redba g, 6 .8 g ram s o f m etha m ph et am in e an d d ru g p arap he rn al ia . The o ffi cers arres te d Harrel so n, an d aMi dd le Dis tri ctof Fl or id a g ran d jury

in di ct edhi m

forpo ss es si onwit h t he in te ntto di st rib ut e m etha m ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) . Harre ls on m ov edth e d is tri ctco urt t o s up pr es s t he ev id en ce s ei zedfro m hi s pe rs on an d h is ve hi cl e, an d t he di st ric t co urt, ad op ti ng th e rec omm en da ti on of t he m ag is tra te jud ge m ad e aft er co nduc ti ng anev id en ti ary he ari ng on th e m ot io n, de ni edth e m ot io n. Harr el so n the reaf te r co ns en te d t o abe nc h t ria l b efo re the di st ric t co urt. The co urt fo un d h im gu il ty as ch arg edan d s en te nc edhi m to pri so n fo r 24 m on th s. Harr el so n n ow ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on , con te nd in g t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredin de nyin g h is m ot io n t o s up pr es s. The di stric t co urt d en ie d Harrel so n’s m ot io n t o s up pr es s o n t wo al te rn at iv e gr ou nd s: (1) th e o ffi cers ha d re as on ab le su sp ic io n t o s to p Harrel so n fo r m etha m ph et am in e tr affi ck in g; an d (2 ), th e o ffi cers ha d p ro babl e cau se to st op hi s ve hi cl e fo r ha vi ng un la wfu ll y ti nt edwin do ws an d/ ora m od ifi edm uf fle r. 2Harre ls onarg ue s tha t t he ev id en ce ad du cedat t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng supp orte d

ne it he r gr ou nd . He says th e fi rs t g ro un d l ack s s up po rt b ecau se th e o ffi cers were act in g m erel y

on an“ im

pe rm is si bl e h un ch .” The s eco ndgro un d fa il s b ecau se th e of fic ers lac ke d p ro babl e cau se to st op hi s v eh ic le fortra ffi c law vi ol at io ns . W e co ns id er the se arg um en ts in tu rn . 1 I. The Fo urth Am en dm en t p ro te ct s i nd iv idua ls fro m un reas on ab le sea rch an d se iz ur e. U.S. Con st . Am en d. IV. Law en fo rcem en t o ffi cers m ay sei ze a s us pe ct fo r a b rie f, in ve st ig at ory

st op wher e th e o ffi cers ha ve a reas on ab le su sp ic io n t ha t th e su sp ectwas i nv ol ve d i n, o r is ab ou t t o b e in vo lv edin , cri m in al act iv it y . Terry v. Ohi o , 39 2 U.S. 1 , 30 , 88 S.Ct . 18 68 , 18 84 , 20 L. Ed.2d88 9 (1 96 8) . Reas on ab le su sp ic io n i s d et erm in edfro m th e co ll ect iv e kno wled ge of a ll of t he off ic ers in vo lv edinth e st op . Uni te d Sta te s v. Will ia ms , 87 6 F .2d15 21 , 15 24 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). The re as on ab le su sp ic io n m us t b e m or e th anan“ in ch oa te an d un pa rti cu la riz edsu sp ic io n.” Ter ry , 39 2 U.S. at27 , 88 S.Ct . at 1 88 3. We lo okat th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces to asc ert ai n “ whe th er the de ta in in g o ffi cer h a[d ] a

“A district cour

t's r uling on a motion to s uppress pre sents mix ed questions of lawand 1 fac t.” United States v. Ramire z-Chilel , 289 F.3d 744, 748- 49 (11th Cir. 2002). We revie w the court’s f indings of f

act f or cle ar e rror

and its application of the la w to those fac ts de novo. Id. at 749. 3pa rti cu la riz edan d o bjec ti ve ba si s fo r su sp ect in g l eg al wron gd oi ng .” Uni te d Sta te s

v. Arvi zu , 53 4 U.S. 2 66 , 27 3, 1 22 S.Ct . 74 4, 7 50 , 15 1 L.Ed .2d74 0 (2 00 2) . Offi cers m ay

“ dr aw on th ei r own ex pe rie nc e an d s pe ci al iz edtra in in g t o m ak e in fere nc es fro m

an d d educ ti on s ab ou t t he cu m ul at iv e in fo rm at io n a va il ab le to th em th atm ig htwell elu de anun tra in edpe rs on .” Id. at 2 73 , 12 2 S .Ct. at75 0- 51 (quo ta ti onom it te d) . Whi le a “ m ere h un ch ” is in su ffi ci en t t o ju st ify a st op , th e li ke li ho odof c riminal act iv ity ne edno t ri se to th e le ve l re qu ire d fo r pr ob ab le cau se , anditfal ls co ns id erab ly sho rt o f sa ti sf y in g apre po nd eran ce o f th e ev id en ce st an da rd . Id. , 12 2 S .Ct. at75 1. Here, t he to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces de m on st rat e th atth e p ol ic e were act in g upo n m or e th anan“ im pe rm is si bl e h un ch ” whe n the y co nduc te d a n in ve st ig at iv e st op of Ha rrel so n’s v eh ic le . As he tes ti fie d a t t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng , Lieu te na ntAum en t o f th e DeSo taCo un ty Sheri ff’s o ffi ce l earn edon Mar ch16 , 20 10 fro m

a kn own , pre vi ou sl y

rel iabl e CI t ha t Li tt le Ro b was a supp li er o f m etha m

ph et am in e an d d ro ve a redFo rdF-1 50 tru ck . Thro ug h h is in ve st ig at io n, h e id en ti fie d Li tt le Ro b a s Harrel so n. Tenda y s l at er, o n M arch 26 , Aum en t re cei ve d ati p fr om Offic er Pi tt s o f th e Arcad ia(Fl or id a) Po li ce Dep artm en t t ha t Harrel so n was go in g t o d el iv er m etha m ph et am in e to a res id en ce i n Arc ad ia . The Arca di a p ol ic e were wat ch in g 4fo r Harre ls on ’s For d t ru ck , bu t n ev er o bs erv editen te rin g t he cit y li m it s. When Aum en t l earn edth atHarrel so n h adno t g on e to Arcad ia , he c on ta ct edSerg ean t Dav is wit h t he Hard ee Co un ty dru g t as k fo rce andto ldhi m to watc h fo r Harre ls on dr iv in g t he redF-1 50 ; Au m en t’s i nv es ti ga ti on rev eal edth atHarrel so n h adve ry cl os e ti es to in di vi du al s i n Har de e Co un ty, an d t he in fo rm at io n was th atHarrel so n wou ldbe de li ve rin g m etha m ph et am in e th atni gh t. Bas edon Davi s’s o n- go in g i nv es ti ga ti on of Ha rrel so n, Dav is su sp ect edth at Harre ls onm ay

be vi si ti ng anass oc ia te who li ve d o n M or ga n R oa d i n Har de e Co un ty andwas u nd er i nv es ti ga ti on forsel li ng m etha m ph et am in e. Davi s in st ru ct edhi s d et ect iv es to setup in vario us lo cat io ns an d k eep aney e o utfor Harre ls on ’s redFo rdtru ck . Give n the factth atth e o ffi cers were re lying on in fo rm at io n g ai ne d fr om

on -g oi ng law en fo rcem en t i nv es ti ga ti on s o f Harre ls on an d i n l ig htof t he ir p ro fes si on al ex pe rie nc es , th e m ag is tra te jud ge , andth us th e di st ric t co urt, d idno t err in fin di ng th atth e o ffi cers ha d areas on ab le su sp ic io n t ha t Harre ls onwas t ran sp orti ng m etha m ph et am in e. Se e Arv iz u , 53 4 U.S. at27 3, 1 22 S.Ct . at 7 50 -5 1. II. A tra ffi c st op is reas on ab le , andth eref or e co ns ti tu ti on al , if t he off ic er co nduc ti ng th e st op ha s p ro babl e cau se to be li ev e th ata tr affi c v io la ti onha s 5oc cu rred . Uni te d Sta te s v. Ha rr is , 52 6 F .3d13 34 , 13 37 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). To

de te rm in e whe th er the off ic er h adpro babl e cau se , we do no t fo cu s o n the off ic er’s subjec ti ve m ot iv es ; ra th er, we fo cu s o n wh ethe r th e ci rcu m st an ces , vi ewed ob jecti ve ly, jus ti fie d t he st op . W hr en v. Uni te d Sta tes , 51 7 U.S. at81 2- 13 , 11 6 S.Ct . at 1 77 4. W

hr en “ squarel y

reject edth e p ret ex tu al st op an al y si s” ; t he reas on ab le ne ss of atra ffi c st op is de te rm in edirr es pe ct iv e o f th e o ffi cer’s i nt en t. Uni te d Sta te s v. Ho ll oma n , 11 3 F .3d19 2, 1 94 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Thatis , “ [ W hr en ] co nc lu si ve ly refut e[d ] th e n ot io n t ha t u lt eri orm ot iv es m ay in va li da te po li ce co nduc t t ha t i s ju st ifi edonth e b as is of p ro babl e cau se to be li ev e th ata vi ol at io n o f la w has oc cu rred .” Id. Hol lo man he ldth at , bec au se th e o ffi cers m ak in g t he tra ffi c st op ha d p ro babl e cau se to be li ev e th ata tr affi c v io la ti on ha d o ccu rred , th ey di d n otvi ol at e th e Fo urth Am en dm en t, “ no twi th st an di ng th ei r subjec ti ve de si re t o in te rcep t an y

na rco ti cs be in g t ran sp orte d” in to th e co un ty. Id. ; se e a ls o Dr ap er v. Reyn olds , 36 9 F .3d12 70 , 12 75 -7 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) (di sc us si ng W hr en an d Hol lo man in th e co nt ex t o f a s ui t b ro ug htpu rs ua ntto 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3, an d de te rm in in g t ha t t he “ on ly que st io n” forpu rp os es of d et erm in in g wh ethe r th e tra ffi c st op at i ss ue was re as on ab le un de r th e Fo urth Am en dm en t was whethe r th e of fic er h adpro babl e cau se to be li ev e a traff ic vi ol at io n o ccu rred , alt ho ug h t he m ot or is t al le ge d t ha t t he off ic er’s rea so n fo r th e st op was p ret ex tu al ).

6Harre ls on do es no t co nt es t t he factth atth e p ol ic e h adpro babl e cau se to

be li ev e th athe ha d c omm it te d atra ffi c v io la ti on . He arg ue s, i ns te ad , th atsi nc e th e of fic ers di d n otco m e acr os s h im as p artof arou ti ne pa tro l, b utha d b een sen t o ut to lo okou t fo r hi m , W

hr en is in ap pl ic ab le . The pe rti ne ntlan gu ag e in W hr en do es no t s ug ge stth aton ly tho se tra ffi c st op s t ha t ar is e fro m

su sp ic io us be ha vi orob se rv edby an o ffi cer wh il e o n ro ut in e pa tro l ar e “ ru n- of

-th e-m in e” ca se s. Se e W

hr en , 51 7 U.S. at81 8- 19 , 11 6 S .Ct. at 17 76 -7 7. Ra th er, W

hr en in di cat es th ata st op m us t b e co nduc te d i n a n ex tra or di na ry

m an ne r to be co ns id eredno t “ ru n- of -th e-m in e.” Se e id. at81 8, 1 16 S.Ct . at 1 77 6. No ev id en ce was subm it te d a t t he supp res si on he ari ng to th e eff ect th atth e st op was c on du ct edin anex tra or di na ry m an ne r. Co ns eque nt ly, th e d is tri ct co urt d idno t err in de nyin g Harrerl so n’s m ot io n t o s up pr es s. AFFIR MED.

7