[1]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

v. ) CRIMINAL NO. 16-0058-WS 

 )

JEROME MEGAILE HENRY, )

 )

 Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the defendant’s motion to suppress. (Doc. 19). 

The government has filed a response, (Doc. 23), the defendant declined the opportunity to 

file a reply, (Doc. 20), and the motion is ripe for resolution.

The defendant was a passenger in a vehicle pulled over by two Alabama Beverage 

Control agents for failing to stop and signal before making a turn. One thing led to 

another, resulting in the discovery of the incriminating evidence made the subject of the 

instant motion. The defendant’s sole argument is that the agents “lacked the 

jurisdictional authority [under Alabama law] to patrol for traffic violations,” (Doc. 19 at 

2), a position he supports with various textual arguments drawn from the Alabama Code. 

(Id. at 2-4). He concludes that “[t]he traffic stop in this case was illegal, and violated the 

Defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from illegal search and seizure.” (Id. at 

4-5). The government disputes the defendant’s reading of Alabama law but deems it a 

moot point because a state-law violation does not constitute a Fourth Amendment 

violation. (Doc. 23 at 2). The Court agrees.

“[T]here is another premise essential to [the arrestee’s] conclusion which is not 

correct, and it is the proposition that an arrest supported by probable cause in 

circumstances where arrest is not permitted under state law violates the Fourth 

Amendment.” Knight v. Jacobson, 300 F.3d 1272, 1276 (11th Cir. 2002). “The Supreme 

Court has held that a traffic stop is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when 

Case 1:16-cr-00058-WS-C Document 25 Filed 08/22/16 Page 1 of 2
[2]

supported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion even if it is inconsistent with agency 

policy ... or state law ....” United States v. House, 684 F.3d 1173, 1206 (11th Cir. 2012). 

Thus, “the district court erred in instructing the jury that a traffic stop is unreasonable 

under the Fourth Amendment whenever conducted by a law enforcement officer acting 

without jurisdiction or authority.” Id. at 1184; accord United States v. Goings, 573 F.3d 

1141, 1142 (11th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he district court correctly found that, under the Supreme 

Court’s decision in [Virginia v.] Moore[, 553 U.S. 164 (2008)], it was irrelevant for 

purposes of the Fourth Amendment whether Going’s arrest violated state law, so long as 

it was supported by probable cause.”); Ducre v. Archer, ___ Fed. Appx. ___, 2016 WL 

3006843 at *1 (11th Cir. 2016) (“[B]oth the Supreme Court and this Court have 

recognized that such state law limitations on an officer’s arrest authority are not 

incorporated into the Fourth Amendment.”); Peterson v. Crawford, 268 Fed. Appx. 879, 

881 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[W]e do not agree that the existence of probable cause is negated 

by a lack of authority to arrest.”).

The defendant does not claim that the traffic stop was unsupported by probable 

cause or reasonable suspicion. Therefore, even if the agents acted beyond their state 

authority, the stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

For the reasons set forth above, the defendant’s motion to suppress is denied.

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of August, 2016.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cr-00058-WS-C Document 25 Filed 08/22/16 Page 2 of 2