# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 43 79

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

St an le y Earl M os le y , Jr.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 44 24

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Kath eri ne Am an da Pih l

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 44 89

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le ev.

Lan ce Lap ae M on de n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Ced ar Ra pi ds

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 21 , 20 17

Fil ed : Dec em

be r 21 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

St an le y Mo sl ey

, Kath eri ne Pi hl

, an d Lan ce Mo nd en ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s 1

de ni al of th e i r mo ti on s to su pp res s. Mo sl ey al so ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s

de te rm in at io n th at he qu al ifi es as a care er of fen de r un de r th e Uni te d S t a te s

Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es (“ U.S.S.G.”). For th e rea so ns th at fol lo w, we affi rm

.

1 The Hon or ab le Leo na rd T. St ran d, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t

fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Io wa, ad op ti ng th e rep or t an d reco m m en d a t io ns of th e

Hon or ab le Jo n St ua rt Sco le s, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Nor th ern D i st ric t

of Iowa , no w ret ire d.

-2

-I.

On May 20

, 20 16

, at ap pr ox im at el y 2: 35 p.m

., two in di vi du al s ro bb ed a ba nk

in Pal o, Io wa. The ro bb ers were in th e ba nk fo r ab ou t a m in ut e. As th e ro bb ers were

le av in g th e ba nk

, fo ur in di vi du al s in a tru ck dr iv in g by sa w th e ro bb ers fle e acro ss th e

gr as s bu t ev en tu al ly lo st si gh t of th e m

. As th e tru ck ci rcl ed aro un d th e bl oc k

at te m pt in g to sp ot th e ro bb ers ag ai n, on e of th e in d i v i du al s in th e tru ck (“ th e

wit ne ss ”) cal le d th e ba nk

. Afte r th e ba nk rece iv ed th e cal l fro m th e wit ne ss

, a ba nk

e mp l oyee cal le d 91 1 an d be ga n rel ay in g in fo rm at io n ab ou t th e ro bb ery, in cl ud i n g

in fo rm at io n th e em

pl oyee was ge tt in g fro m th e wit ne ss on th e ot he r li ne

. Tho ug h th e

wit ne ss co ul d no t lo cat e t h e r ob be rs he in it ia ll y sa w ru nn in g fro m th e ba nk

, he

rep or te d th at a gr ay

/s il ve r Fo rd Tau ru s was i n t he vi ci ni ty of th e ba nk an d was th e

on ly ve hi cl e le av in g th e area in th e m om en ts aft er th e ro bb ery. The wit ne ss fo ll owe d

th e Tau ru s an d ga v e i t s l oc at io n an d di rect io n of tra ve l to th e ba nk em pl oyee, who

c o n t i n u ed to rel ay th e in fo rm at io n to 91 1 di sp at ch

. W he n th e wit ne ss go t cl os e

en ou gh to se e in si de th e gr ay Tau ru s, he rep or te d th at he co ul d on ly se e on e wom an

in th e car, whe reas he ha d se en two m e n r u n n i n g f r o m t he ba nk

. At th is po in t, th e

wit ne ss in di cat ed th at he was no lo ng er su re if th e gr ay Tau ru s was in vo lv ed in th e

ba nk rob be ry

.

Aro un d 2: 40 p.m

., Dep ut y Uhe r rece iv ed a rad io di sp at ch th at a g r a y F o r d

Tau ru s m ay ha ve be en in vo lv ed in a ba nk ro bb ery an d was se en he ad in g so ut hb ou nd

on Hig hwa y 94 to ward Ced ar Rap id s. A few m in ut es l a te r, he id en ti fie d a ve hi cl e

m at ch in g th e co lo r, m ak e, an d m od el gi ve n in th e de sc rip ti on

, an d th e ve hi cl e w a s

tra ve li ng in th e di rect io n in di cat ed by th e wit ne ss

. At ab ou t 2: 44 p.m

., Dep ut y Uhe r

in it ia te d a st op of th e Tau ru s ap pr ox im at el y 5.8 m il es fro m t h e b a n k a nd

ap pr ox im at el y

eig ht m in ut es aft er t he rob be ry to ok pl ace.

Dep ut y Uhe r ran th e Tau ru s’s li cen se pl at e nu m be r an d de te rm in ed th at th e car

was reg is te red to Farr ah Fran kl in

. As Dep ut y Uhe r pr ep ared to ap pr oa ch th e dr iv er,

-3

-di sp at ch rep o r t e d t h at th e wit ne ss was no t su re if th e Tau ru s was in vo lv ed in th e

ro bb ery. Dep ut y Uhe r sp ok e wit h th e dr iv er, Kath eri ne Pi hl

, bu t di d no t se e an y on e

el se in si de th e car. Dep ut y Uhe r th en to ld Pi hl sh e co ul d le av e, bu t be fo re sh e co ul d,

an ot he r of

fic er su gg es te d v ia rad io th at Depu ty U he r ob ta in m or e in fo rm at io n from

Pi hl

. At ab ou t 2: 47 p.m

., di sp at ch in fo rm ed Dep ut y Uhe r th at th ey h a d sp ok en

di rect ly to th e wit ne ss an d th at he in d i c a t e d he di d no t act ua ll y se e th e two ro bb ers

ge t in th e gr ay Tau ru s. Dep ut y Uhe r th en to ld di sp at ch th at he was go in g to le t Pi hl

go

. Ano th er de pu ty su gg es te d th at Dep ut y Uhe r ch eck th e tru nk

. At ap pr ox im at el y

2: 48 p.m ., P ih l op en ed th e tru nk

. In si de an d ab ou t fo ur mi n ut es aft er Dep ut y Uhe r

in it ia te d th e st op

, of

fic ers fo un d Mo nd en an d Mo sl ey

, al on g wit h cas h an d m as ks

.

Pi hl , Mo nd en , and Mo sl ey were ar res te d.

Pi hl

, Mo nd en

, an d Mo sl ey were in di c t e d fo r ba nk ro bb ery in vi ol at io n of 18

U.S.C. § 21 13 (a)

. A ll th ree fil ed m ot io ns to su pp res s ev id en ce un de r th e Fo ur th

Am en dm en t. Th e mag is tra te jud ge fil ed a rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on co nc lu di ng

th at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld de ny th e m ot io ns to su pp res s. The reaf te r, Pi hl

, Mo nd en

,

an d Mo sl ey pl ead ed gu il ty, res erv in g th ei r rig ht s t o a p pe al th e de ni al of th e

su pp res si on m ot io ns

. Se e Fed . R. Cri m . P. 11 (a)( 2) . The d is tri ct co ur t ac cep te d th e

rep or t an d reco m

m en da ti on an d den ie d th e m ot io ns to su pp res s. At sen te nc in g, th e

di st ri c t c ou rt fo un d th at Mo sl ey qu al ifi ed fo r a care er of fen de r en ha nc em en t bu t

va rie d do wnwar d aft er cal cu la ti ng hi s g u i d e l i ne s ran ge

. On ap pe al

, Pi hl

, Mo nd en

,

an d Mo sl ey ch al le ng e th e de ni al of th ei r su pp res si on m ot io ns

, an d Mo sl ey ch al le ng es

hi s s en te nc e, cl ai m in g t ha t h e d oe s n ot qu al ify as a ca reer off en de r.

II

.

“ W e re v i e w t h e de ni al of a m ot io n to su pp res s de no vo bu t th e un de rlyin g

fact ua l de te rm in at io ns fo r cl ear erro r, gi vi ng du e weig ht to in fere nc es dr awn by la w

en fo rcem en t of

fic ia ls .” Uni te d St at es v. Hur d

, 78 5 F.3 d 31 1, 31 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). In

-4

-t h e i r mo t io ns to su pp res s, th e ap pe ll an ts ch al le ng ed th e le ga li ty of th e st op

, t h e

du rat io n o f th e st op , and th e se arch of t he tru nk . W e ad dr es s ea ch is su e in tu rn

.

A.

“ The Fo ur th Am e n d m en t pe rm it s in ve st ig at iv e tra ffi c st op s whe n la w

en fo rcem en t ha s reas on ab le su sp ic io n of cri m in al act iv it y .” Uni te d St at es v. Ta may oBae z

, 82 0 F. 3 d 3 0 8

, 31 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (ci ti ng Na va re tt e v. Ca li fo rn ia

, 13 4 S. Ct

.

16 83

, 16 87 (2 01 4) ). Rea so na bl e su sp ic io n “ i s c o n si de rab ly le ss th an pr oo f of

wro ng do in g by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce, an d ob vi ou sl y le ss th an is ne ces sa ry

fo r pr ob ab le cau se .” Na va re tt e

, 13 4 S. Ct

. at 16 87 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

.

“ Rea so na bl e su sp ic io n ex is ts whe n an of fic er is aware of pa rti cu la ri z e d, ob jecti ve

fact s whi ch

, ta ke n to ge th er wit h r a t i on al in fere nc es fro m th os e fact s, reas on ab ly

warra nt su sp ic io n th at a cri m e is be in g co m m it te d.” Uni te d St at es v. Give ns

, 76 3 F.3 d

98 7, 98 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o mi t t e d)

. Tho ug h an “ in ch oa te

hu nc h ” d oe s no t eq ua te to reas on ab le su sp ic io n, “ th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t on ly

r eq ui res th at po li ce art ic ul at e so m e m in im al

, ob jecti ve jus ti fic at io n fo r a n

in ve st ig at or y st op

. ” T

a m a yo -Bae z

, 82 0 F.3 d at 31 2. W e as se ss whe th er a la w

en fo rcem en t of

fic ia l ha d reas o n a b l e su sp ic io n of cri m in al act iv it y ba se d on th e

to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces

. Id

.

The ap pe ll an ts cl ai m th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in two way s whe n fin di ng th at

th e ve hi cl e st op was s u p p o r t e d b y reas on ab le su sp ic io n. Fi rs t, th ey as se rt th at

be cau se th e po li ce of

fic ers in th is cas e were un su re whe th er th e gr ay Tau ru s was

in vo lv ed in th e ba nk ro bb ery, th ey la ck ed r e a s o n a b l e s us pi ci on to st op a ve hi cl e

m at ch in g th at de sc rip ti on

. Seco nd

, th e ap pe ll an ts arg ue th at th e ti p fro m th e wit ne ss

was un rel ia bl e an d th eref or e in su ffi ci en t t o c r e at e reas on ab le su sp ic io n of cri m in al

act iv it y . Bot h c on te nt io ns are i nc on si st en t wi th co nt ro ll in g p rece de nt

.

Fi rs t, th e ap p e l la nt s rel y on th e Fi fth Ci rcu it ’s de ci si on in Uni te d St at es v.

Ja qu ez

, 42 1 F.3 d 33 8 (5 th Ci r

. 2 0 05 ) (p er cu ria m ), to su pp or t th e id ea th at la w

-5

-en fo rcem en t la ck ed su ffi ci en t sp eci fic in fo rm at io n to su pp or t reas on ab le su sp ic io n

be cau se th e wit ne ss was no t ab le to st at e “ co nc ret el y ” th a t t h e F or d Tau ru s was

in vo lv ed in th e ba nk ro bb ery. In Ja qu ez

, th e Fi fth Ci rcu it fo un d th at an of fic er who

rece iv ed a cal l fro m di sp at ch reg ard in g an in ci de nt in vo lv in g “ sh ot s fir ed ” an d a “ red

v e h i c l e ” la ck ed reas on ab le su sp ic io n to st op a red ve hi cl e le av in g th e area fif te en

m in ut es la te r. Id

. at 34 0- 41

. The co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at th e “ sp ars e an d br oa dl y ge ne ric

in fo rm at io n pr ov id ed by th e di sp at ch er, w it ho ut m or e, was in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a

de te rm in at io n o f rea so na bl e su sp ic io n.” Id

. at 3 41

.

T h e f a c t s in Ja qu ez are read il y di st in gu is ha bl e fro m th is cas e, bu t, m or e

im po rta nt ly, ou r own pr eced en t reject s an y req ui rem en t th at th ere m us t be a de fin it e

or cert ai n co nn ect io n to th e cri m in a l a c t i v i t y to su pp or t reas on ab le su sp ic io n. In

Uni te d St at es v. Rob er ts

, a m as ke d gu nm an fir ed sh ot s at th ree pe op le

, an d wit ne ss es

sa w a bl ack Ch ry sl er qu ic kl y le av in g th e area aft er th e sh oo ti ng

. 78 7 F.3 d 12 04

, 12 07

(8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). An of

fic er sa w a bl ack Ch ry sl er ab ou t se ve n bl oc ks fro m th e lo cat io n

of th e sh oo ti ng an d st op pe d th e ve hi cl e. Id

. The de fen da nt in th at cas e arg ue d t ha t

at th e ti m e of th e st op

, it was un cl ear wha t ro le th e bl ack Ch ry sl er pl ay ed in th e

sh oo ti ng

. Id

. at 12 10

. The de fen da nt al so cl ai m ed th at “ th e cl ot hi ng he was weari ng

whe n he was pu ll ed ov er di d no t m at ch t h e d e s c r ip ti on s gi ve n by so m e of th e

wit ne ss es .” Id

. Acco rd in gl y

, he arg ue d th at th e st op w a s un la wfu l be cau se th e

of fic er la ck ed reas on ab le su sp ic io n to be li ev e he was in vo lv ed in cri m in al act iv it y

.

Id

. W e di sa gr eed

, no ti ng th at “ [i]t is no t su rp ris in g th at m om en ts aft er th e sh oo ti ng

,

th e po li ce were un su re of th e pr eci se ro le th e bl ack Ch ry sl er m ay ha ve pl ay ed

. And

in li gh t of th is br ie f ti m e fram e, i t w a s r e a s o n a bl e fo r [th e of fic er] to st op a car

m at ch in g th e de sc rip ti on of th e car t h a t w i t n e s se s ha d se en fle ei ng th e sc en e of th e

cri m e.” Id

. W e to ok s p e c i a l no te of “ th e cl os e te m po ral an d ph y si cal pr ox im it y of

th e car to th e cri m e” an d ul ti m at el y co nc lu de d th at th e of fic e r ha d reas on ab le

su sp ic io n ju st ifyin g t he in ve st ig at iv e st op

. Id

. (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v. Ju ven il e TK

,

13 4 F .3d 89 9, 9 03 -0 4 (8 th Cir . 19 98 )).

-6

-Ju st as i n Rob er ts , th e po li ce in th is cas e “ were un su re of t he pre ci se rol e th e

[g ray Tau ru s] m ay ha ve pl ay ed .” Se e id

. Howev er, th e gr a y Ta u r u s w a s t he on ly

ve hi cl e th at th e wit ne ss sa w lea vi ng th e are a sh or tl y aft er s po tt in g t wo h oo de d m en

fle e fro m th e ba nk

. Dep ut y Uhe r th en id en ti fie d th e ve hi cl e in cl os e ge og rap hi c an d

te m po ral pr ox im it y to th e ro bb ery, tra ve li ng in th e di rect io n an d on th e ro ad pr ov id ed

by th e wit ne ss

. W hi le th e dr iv er of th e Tau ru s di d no t m at ch th e de sc rip ti on of th e

two m en fle ei ng th e sc en e of th e ba nk ro bb ery, th e de fen da nt in Rob er ts al so di d no t

m at ch ex act ly th e de sc rip ti on s gi ve n by wit ne ss es

. Se e id .; cf

. Na va re tt e

, 13 4 S. Ct

.

at 16 91 (“ [W] e ha ve co ns is te nt ly reco gn iz ed th at reas on ab le su sp ic io n ne ed no t ru le

ou t th e po ss ib il it y of in no cen t co nd uc t.” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ). Thu s,

ba se d on th es e fact or s an d “ th e cl os e te m po ral an d ph y si cal pr ox im i t y o f th e [g ray

Ta u ru s] to th e cri m e,” th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces in di cat es th at re a s o n a b l e

su sp ic io n su pp or te d th e ve hi cl e st op an d ren de red it co ns ti tu ti on al

. Se e Rob er ts

, 78 7

F.3 d a t 1 21 0.

Seco nd

, th e ap pe ll an ts arg ue th at Dep ut y Uhe r la ck ed reas on ab le su sp ic io n to

st op th e Tau ru s be cau se th e ti p fro m th e wit ne ss was un rel ia bl e. The ap pe ll an ts cl ai m

th at ev en th ou gh th e wit ne ss ’s na m e an d te le ph on e nu m be r were kn own

, no th in g el se

was k n o w n ab ou t th is in di vi du al

. The y arg ue th at la w en fo rcem en t ha d no

in fo rm at io n reg ard in g th e wit ne ss ’s ve raci ty an d di d no t rece iv e th e in fo rm at io n fro m

th e wit ne ss di rect ly bu t fro m a th ird pa rty who was on th e p h o n e w i t h bo th th e

wit ne ss an d t he po li ce.

Th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s an al y si s in Na va re tt e v. Ca li fo rn ia

, ho wev er, su gg es t s

th at th e wit ne ss ’s ti p was rel ia bl e an d pr ov id ed reas on ab le su sp ic io n to m ak e th e st op

.

W he n e v a l ua ti ng ti ps , r eas on ab le su sp ic io n “ is de pe nd en t up on bo th th e co nt en t of

th e in fo rm at io n po ss es se d by th e po li ce an d it s de gr ee of rel ia bi li ty.” Na va re tt e

, 13 4

S. Ct . a t 16 87

. In Na va re tt e , a la w e nf or ce men t di sp at ch te am rece iv ed a cal l fro m

an ot he r di sp at ch er in a ne ig hb or in g co un ty rel ay in g a ti p fr o m a 91 1 cal le r. Id

. at

16 86

. The ti ps te r rep or te d th at an ot he r c a r r a n h e r of f th e hi gh way fiv e m in ut es

-7

-earl ie r an d ga ve a de sc rip ti on of th e ve hi cl e an d it s li cen se pl at e nu m be r. Id

. at 16 86

-

87

. In fin di ng th at th e of fic er’s reli an ce on th e ti p was jus ti fie d, th e Su pr em e Co ur t

e mp h a s iz ed th e “ ey ewit ne ss kn owl ed ge of th e al le ge d da ng ero us dr iv in g,” th e

“ co nt em po ran eo us r e p o r t[i ng ]” of th e in ci de nt

, an d th e ab il it y to ho ld th e ti ps te r

acco un ta bl e fo r po te nt ia ll y fal se rep or ts

. Id

. at 16 89 -9 0.

Here, th e ve ry sa m e fact or s— ey ewit ne ss kn owl ed ge

, co nt em po ra n e o u s

rep or ti ng

, an d acco un ta bi li ty—weig h in fav or of th e wit ne ss ’ s rel ia bi li ty. The

wit ne ss c l a i med e ye w it ne ss kn owl ed ge of th e fact s at ha nd an d was ab le to pr ed ic t

th e Tau ru s’s di rect io n of tra ve l. Mo reo ve r, th e wit ne ss rep or te d h i s o b s e r v a ti on s

ne arl y “ co nt em

po ran eo us [ly] ”—h e cal le d the ba nk w ith in fi ve m inu te s of the ro bb ery,

an d a ba nk em

pl oyee pr om

pt ly be ga n rel ay in g in fo rm at io n to a 91 1 op erat or

. Fi na ll y

,

be cau se th e wit ne ss ’s na m e a nd te le ph on e nu m be r were kn own

, he co ul d be he ld

acco un ta bl e fo r fal se rep or ti ng

. As a res ul t, ba se d o n Na va re tt e

, we fin d th at th e

wit ne ss ’s ti p th at Dep ut y Uhe r rel ie d up on was rel ia bl e. The refo re, th e di st ric t co ur t

pr op erl y co nc lu de d th at th e st op was su pp o r t e d by reas on ab le su sp ic io n un de r th e

to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces

.

B.

W e ne xt co ns id er whe th er th e st op of th e Tau ru s was pr ol on ge d

un co ns ti tu ti on al ly aft er Dep ut y Uhe r’s in it ia l co nv ers at io n wit h Pi hl

. “ The Fo ur th

Am en dm en t req ui res th at a se arch no t co nt in ue lo n g e r th an ne ces sa ry to effe ct ua te

th e pu rp os es of an in ve st ig at iv e st op .” Uni te d S ta te s v. Wat ts

, 7 F.3d 12 2, 12 6 (8t h

Ci r. 19 93 ). “ [ A ]n in ve st ig at iv e st op m us t ceas e on ce reas on ab le su sp ic io n or

pr ob ab l e ca

u se di ss ip at es .” Id

. The ap pe ll an ts arg ue th at la w en fo rcem en t un la wfu ll y

ex te nd ed th e st op aft er th ey ob ta in ed Pi hl ’s in fo rm at io n an d de te rm in ed th at sh e was

al on e in th e cab of th e car, co nt rary to th e wit ne ss ’s ti p rep or ti ng two m al e su sp ect s.

In Rod ri gu ez v. Uni te d St at es

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t he l d t h a t “ th e to le rab le

du rat io n o f po li ce i nq ui res in th e tra ffi c-s to p co nt ex t is de te rm in ed by the sei zu re’s

-8

-‘m is si on .’ ” 13 5 S. Ct

. 16 09

, 16 14 (2 01 5)

. In ot he r wor ds

, “ a po li ce st op ex ceed in g

th e ti m e ne ed ed to ha nd le th e m at te r fo r whi ch th e st op was m ad e vi ol at es th e

Co ns ti tu ti on ’s sh ie ld ag ai ns t un reas on ab le se iz ur es ,” id

. at 16 12

, be cau se a “ se iz ur e

rem ai ns la wfu l on ly so lo ng as [u nr el at ed ] in qu ire s do no t m ea s u r a b ly ex te nd th e

du rat io n of th e st op ,” id

. at 16 15 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o mi t t e d ) ( al te rat io n in

or ig in al ). W he n co nd uc ti ng a tr af fi c st op

, th e “ m is si on ” of st op pi ng th e ve hi cl e is to

ad dr es s a tra ffi c vi ol at io n an d rel at ed s a f e t y c on cern s. App lying th is lo gi c, th e

Su pr em e Co ur t co nc lu de d th at la w en fo rcem en t can no t un la w f u l l y e xt en d a tra ffi c

st op to al lo w a dr ug -s ni ffi ng do g to ch eck fo r na rco ti cs aft er th e tra ffi c vi ol at io n ha s

al read y be en ad dr es se d. Id

. at 16 14 -1 5, 16 16 -1 7 (rem an di ng to de te rm in e “ whe th er

reas on ab le su sp ic io n o f cri m in al act iv it y jus ti fie d det ai ni ng [th e de fen da nt ] be y on d

th e co m pl et io n o f th e tr affi c in frac ti on in ve st ig at io n” ).

App el la nt s rel y on th e Seco nd Ci rcu it ’s ap pl ic at io n of Rod ri gu ez an d su gg es t

th at th e sc op e of

law en fo rcem en t’s m is si on in th is cas e was li m it ed to de te rm in in g

whe th er th e oc cu pa nt s of th e ve hi cl e m at ch ed th e de sc rip ti on of th e su sp ect ed ba nk

ro bb ers

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. W at so n

, 78 7 F.3 d 10 1, 10 2- 05 (2 d Ci r. 20 15 ) (fi nd in g

th at an of fic er, whi le lo ok in g fo r a si ng le kn own su sp ect

, un co ns ti tu ti on al ly se arch ed

an in di vi du al th at th e of

fic er kn ew was no t th e ta rg et ed su sp ect ). Here, ho wev er, th e

m is si on of th e st op was no t to in ve st ig at e a t raff ic vi ol at io n o r id en ti fy

a m at ch to a

k no wn su sp ect bu t rat he r to de te rm in e whe th er an d to wha t ex te nt th e Ta u r u s w a s

in vo lv ed in th e ba nk ro bb ery. Law en fo rcem en t wor ke d di li ge nt ly in pu rs ui t of th is

m is si on

.

Non et he le ss

, th e a pp el la nt s arg ue th at th e st op was un la wfu ll y ex te nd ed

. In

p a r t i cu la r, th ey co nt en d th at an y reas on ab le su sp ic io n ba se d on th e wit ne ss ’ s t i p

di ss ip at ed whe n Dep ut y Uhe r ob ta in ed Pi hl ’s in fo rm at io n an d de te rm i n ed th at sh e

was al on e in th e pa ss en ge r co m pa rtment of th e car, in co nt rad ic ti on to th e wit ne ss ’s

ti p rep or ti ng t wo m en fle ei ng th e sc en e of th e ba nk ro bb ery. Fu rth erm or e, th e

ap pe ll an ts po in t ou t th at “ [n ]oth in g ab ou t Dep ut y Uhe r’s in te ract io ns wit h Pi hl

-9

-in di cat ed to hi m th at th e Fo rd Tau ru s was in vo lv ed .” At th at po in t, th e ap pe ll an ts

cl ai m

, r e a s o n ab le su sp ic io n no lo ng er ex is te d an d fu rth er in ve st ig at io n un la wfu ll y

ex te nd ed th e st op

.

Bu t reas on ab le su sp ic io n di d n ot di ss ol ve si m pl y be cau se Pi hl di d no t m at ch

th e de sc ri p t i o n g i v en by t he wit ne ss or be cau se Dep ut y Uhe r’s in it ia l in ve st ig at io n

d i d n o t bo ls te r hi s or ig in al su sp ic io n. Dis crep an ci es be twee n th e in fo rm at io n

pr ov id ed in th e t ip an d th e fact s on th e gr ou nd —ev en in co ns is te nc ie s as to th e

nu m be r of oc cu pa nt s in a ve hi cl e—d o no t al on e un de rm in e reas on ab le su sp ic io n,

es p e c ia ll y whe re th ere are ot he r fact or s co rro bo rat in g th e ti p an d reas on ab le

ex pl an at io ns fo r th e di sc rep an ci es

. Se e, e.g

. , U n i t e d St at es v. Hur

st , 2 28 F.3 d 75 1,

75 7 (6 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (“ The pr es en ce of th ree pe rs o n s in th e car, rat he r th an two , i s a

di sc rep an cy th at m ig ht reas on ab ly be ex pl ai ne d in an y nu m be r of way s an d do es no t

de feat th e as se ss m en t th at [th e of fic er] ha d reas on ab le gr ou nd s to in ve st ig at e

fu rth er.”)

. As th e Gov ern m en t no te d in it s br ie f, ba nk ro bb er s o f te n us e ge ta way

dr iv ers

, so whe n in ve st ig at in g whe th er a ve hi cl e was in vo lv ed in su ch a ro bb ery, “ la w

en fo rcem en t’s m is si on co ul d in cl ud e de te rm in in g if th e dr iv er is th e ge ta way dr iv er,

ev en if sh e do es no t m eet th e de sc rip ti on of th e m en who wen t i n t o th e ba nk .”

Fu rth erm or e, it is fo res eeab le th at ba nk ro bb ers us in g ge ta way dr iv ers wou ld co nc eal

th em se lv es in th e v eh ic le ’s tru nk

.

App el la n t s a r g u e, ho wev er, th at Dep ut y Uhe r in fact la ck ed th e req ui si te

su sp ic io n to co nt in ue th e st op

. In de ed

, he was twi ce pr ep ared to le t Pi hl le av e. St il l,

th ei r arg um en t ig no res th e co ll ect iv e kn owl ed ge do ct rin e: “ co ll ect iv e kn owl ed ge of

la w en fo rcem en t of

fic ers co nd uc t i n g a n in ve st ig at io n is su ffi ci en t to pr ov id e

reas on ab le su sp ic io n, an d th e co ll ect iv e kn owl ed ge can be im pu te d to th e in di vi du al

of fic er who in it ia te d th e tra ffi c st op whe n th ere is so m e co m m un ic at io n be twee n th e

of fic ers .” Uni te d St at es v. Th omp so n

, 53 3 F.3 d 96 4, 96 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ); se e al so

Uni te d St at es v. W

il li ams

, 42 9 F

. 3d 76 7, 77 1- 72 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (fi nd in g th at th e

co ll ect iv e kn owl ed ge do ct rin e al lo wed kn owl ed ge of ot he r of fic ers to be im

pu te d to

-1 0-an of

fic er who rece iv ed a rad io req ue st to st op th e ve hi cl e). P e r ha ps wit h th is in

m in d, th e ap pe ll an ts su gg es t th at Dep ut y U h e r “ wait ed to ob ta in in pu t fro m ot he r

de pu ti es on th e rad io ” an d th at “ wait in g fo r in pu t fro m of fic ers who aren ’t ev en at th e

sc en e is no t ex pe di ti ou s.” W e di sa gr ee. The en ti re st op to ok on ly fo ur m in ut es an d

was no t u nc on st it ut io na ll y ex te nd ed by Dep ut y Uhe r co nf erri ng wit h ot he r of

fic ers

vi a rad io

. In de ed

, th e of fic ers ’ co m

m un ic at io n w a s i m

m ed ia te an d di d no t

“ m eas ur ab ly ex te nd th e du rat io n of th e st op .” Rod ri gu ez

, 13 5 S. Ct

. at 16 15 (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

T h e m is si on of th e st op —as se ss in g whe th er th e ve hi cl e was in vo lv ed in th e

ba nk ro bb ery—was o ng oi ng th ro ug ho ut Dep ut y Uhe r’s in te ract io n wit h Pi hl

. Law

en fo rcem en t pu rs ue d th at m is si on di li ge nt ly an d wit ho ut m eas ur ab le de la y

. Thu s, th e

du rat io n of th e st op was reas on ab le

. Cf

. Uni te d St at es v. Mur il lo -S al ga do

, 85 4 F.3 d

40 7, 41 5- 16 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (fi nd in g th at a twen ty-th ree m in ut e st op

, whi ch be ga n as

a tra ffi c st op bu t de ve lo pe d in to an in ve st ig at or y s t o p, was no t un co ns ti tu ti on al ly

pr ol on ge d)

.

C.

Fi na ll y

, we co ns id er th e ap pe ll an ts ’ ch al le ng e to la w en fo rcem en t’s se arch of

th e tru nk of th e Tau ru s. The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at t h e y la ck ed st an di ng to

ch al le ng e th e se arch of th e tru nk be cau se th ey di d no t ha ve “ a reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n

of p r i v a c y i n th e pr op ert y to be se arch ed .” Onl y Pi hl an d Mo nd en ch al le ng e th e

se arch of t he tru nk on ap pe al

.

W e rev ie w whe th er an in di vi du al ha s st an di ng to ch al le ng e a se arch de no vo

.

Uni te d St at es v. Ang ui an o

, 79 5 F.3 d 87 3, 87 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). “ Fo ur th Am en dm en t

rig ht s ar e pe rs on al rig ht s th at m ay no t b e as se rte d v ic ari ou sl y .” Id

. “ An i nd iv id ua l

a s s e r t in g Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s m us t de m on st rat e th at he pe rs on al ly ha s a n

ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in th e pl ace se arch ed

, an d th at hi s ex pe ct at io n is reas on ab le .”

Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. To es ta bl is h st an di ng

, “ [t]he de fen da nt

-1 1-m ov in g to su p p res s be ars th e bu rd en of pr ov in g he ha d a le gi ti m at e ex pe ct at io n of

pr iv acy th at was vi ol at ed by th e ch al le ng ed se arch .” Uni te d St at es v. Muh amma d

, 58

F.3 d 35 3, 35 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (p er cu ria m ). In de te rm in in g whe th er an in di vi du al ha s

s t a n di ng to ch al le ng e a ve hi cl e se arch

, “ own ers hi p” an d “ pe rm is si on ” pl ay a n

i mp o r t a n t ro le

. Uni te d St at es v. Gomez , 1 6 F.3 d 25 4, 25 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ); se e al so

Uni te d St at es v. Best

, 13 5 F.3 d 12 23

, 12 25 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 )

. We ha ve he ld th at an

in di vi du al la ck ed st an di ng be cau se “ he di d no t own th e car, an d th e o w n er di d no t

gi ve hi m pe rm is si on to us e it .” Gomez

, 16 F.3 d at 25 6 (fi nd in g th e de fen da nt la ck ed

a rea so na bl e ex pe ct at io n o f pr iv acy in a ve hi cl e, ev en whe re a “ th ird pa rty tol d [t he

de fen da nt ] th e own er ha d gi ve n pe rm is si on fo r it s us e”). W hi le th e st an di ng an al y si s

m ay in cl ud e ot he r fact or s as well

, se e id

. , ne it he r Pi hl no r Mo nd en id en ti fy an y su ch

co ns id erat io ns in th is cas e.

In a Ju ly 2 01 6 in te rv ie w, Farr ah Fran kl in , t he own er of th e g ray Tau ru s, to ld

of fic ers th a t s h e d i d no t kn ow Mo sl ey

, Mo nd en

, or Pi hl an d ha d no t gi ve n th em

pe rm is si on to us e he r car. In fact

, Fran kl in ha d cal le d th e Ced ar Rap id s Po li ce

Dep art m en t on th e da y of th e ba nk r o b b e r y t o rep or t th e ve hi cl e st ol en , t ho ug h sh e

ne ve r co m

pl et ed a fo rm al rep or t. The car was r e g i st ered in Fran kl in ’s na m e.

Fran kl in ’s hu sb an d, Ced ric Ri ve rs

, te st ifi ed at th e su p p r e s s i o n he ari ng th at he

bo rro wed th e car wit h Fran k l i n ’s p e rm is si on an d th en lo an ed it to Mo nd en

. He

te st ifi ed t h a t Fran kl in ha d, in th e pa st

, sp eci fic al ly to ld hi m no t to lo an th e car to

Mo nd en an d g en eral ly not to let an y on e el se us e th e v eh ic le

.

Pi hl co nt e s ts th e se arch of th e tru nk bu t do es no t co nt es t th e fact th at sh e

la ck ed pe rm is si on to dr iv e th e v e h i c le or th at sh e fai le d to ot he rwis e es ta bl is h an

e x p e ct at io n of pr iv acy in th e ve hi cl e. W it ho ut an ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in t h e

Tau ru s, Pi hl la ck s st an di ng to ch al le ng e th e se arch of th e tru nk

. Se e Muh amma d

, 58

F.3 d a t 3 55

.

-1 2-Mo nd en arg ue s th at he ha s st an d i n g to ch al le ng e th e se arch of th e tru nk

be cau se Ri ve rs ga ve hi m pe rm is si on to us e th e ve hi cl e, whi ch crea te d an ex pe ct at io n

of pr iv acy in th e ve hi cl e. Howev er, Ri ve rs hi m se lf ack no wled ge d th at Fran kl in di d

no t kn ow th at he lo an ed th e c a r to Mo nd en on th is oc cas io n an d th at sh e ha d

s p e c i f ic al ly pr oh ib it ed hi m fro m lo an in g th e car to ot he r pe op le

. Thu s, ev en if

Mo nd en were co rrec t in su gg es ti ng th at

, un de r cert ai n ci rcu m st an ces

, st an di ng co ul d

de riv e fro m pe rm is si on gi ve n by an au th or iz ed us er ot he r th an th e own er of th e

ve hi cl e, Ri ve rs ex pr es sl y la ck ed au th or it y to pe rm it Mo nd en to us e th e ve hi cl e. Tha t

fact in va li da te s an y pu rp or te d pe rm is si on gi ve n by Ri ve rs an d di st in gu is he s th is cas e

fro m t h o s e r a i si ng th e m or e di ffi cu lt qu es ti on reg ard in g pe rm is si on fro m an

un res tri ct ed au th or iz ed us er. Cf

. Uni te d St at es v. Lo ng , 8 70 F.3 d 79 2, 79 7 n.3 (8 th

Ci r. 20 17 ) (n ot in g “ th e ex is te nc e of a ci rcu it sp li t a s t o whe th er ev en a dr iv er wit h

pe rm is si on di re ct ly fro m th e co nt ract ua ll y au th or iz ed dr iv er ha s st an di ng to ch al le ng e

a se arch of t he ren ta l v eh ic le ”).

Nev ert he le ss

, Mo nd en se em s to su gg es t th at be cau se he bo rro wed th e ve hi cl e

fro m Ri ve rs “ on a reg ul ar ba si s,” th is us e ev ol ve d in to a ba si s fo r hi s reas on ab le

ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in th e ve hi cl e

. Howev er, Mo nd en ’s on ly su pp or t fo r th at

pr op os it io n is Ri ve rs ’s te st im on y th at Ri ve rs “ us ua ll y ” lo an ed hi m th e ve hi cl e, “ a few

ti m es ” to “ ru n to th e st or e.” Tha t very li m it ed an d un au th or iz ed pe rm is si on di d no t

crea te a re as ona

ble ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in th e ve hi cl e, es pe ci al ly whe re “ ev erybod y

kn ows it ’s [Fra nk li n’s] car.” W it ho ut an y ad di ti on al ev id en ce ex pl ai ni ng why he ha d

a r eas on ab le ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in th e ve hi cl e, Mo nd en ha s fai le d to carr y h i s

bu rd en of pr ov in g he ha s st an di ng to ch al le ng e th e se arch of th e tru nk

. Se e Gomez

,

16 F.3 d at 25 6; cf

. Lo ng , 8 70 F.3 d at 79 7 (fi nd in g, in th e ren ta l-c ar co nt ex t, th at an

in di vi du al who was “ an un au th or iz ed -d riv er

- o n c e

- rem ov ed

, wit h on ly in di rect

pe rm is si on fro m th e au th or iz ed dr iv er to dr iv e th e ve hi cl e, do es no t ha ve st an di ng to

ch al le ng e th e se arch of t he ve hi cl e”).

-1 3-Bec au se Pih l an d Mo nd en la ck st an di ng to ch al le ng e th e se arch of t he tru nk

,

th e d is tri ct co ur t co rrec tl y de ni ed th e m ot io ns to su pp res s o n t hi s g ro un d.

II I.

W e no w tu rn to Mo sl ey ’s ch al le ng e to hi s de si gn at io n a s a care er of fen de r

pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1. A pe rs on qu al ifi es as a care er of fen de r if (1 ) he was

ei gh te en y ears or ol de r at th e ti m e he co m m it te d th e in st an t of

fen se of co nv ic ti on

, (2 )

th e in st an t of

fen se of co nv ic ti on is a fel on y th at i s e it he r a cri m e of vi ol en ce or a

co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e of

fen se

, an d (3 ) he ha s at le as t two pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on s fo r

ei th er a cri m e of vi ol en ce or a co nt ro l l e d s u b s t a n c e of fen se

. U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1 (a).

Mo sl ey arg ue s th at he is no t a care er of fen de r be cau se (1 ) hi s in st an t of fen se is no t

a cri m e of vi ol en ce an d (2 ) hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on s fo r Ill in oi s ro bb ery an d Io wa se co nd

de gr ee ro bb ery d o n o t c o ns ti tu te cri m es of vi ol en ce. W e rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t

co ur t’s de te rm in at io n t h a t a c on vi ct io n qu al ifi es as a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r th e

se nt en ci ng gu id el in es

. Uni te d St at es v. Mai d

, 77 2 F.3d 11 18

, 11 20 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ).

Here, ho wev er, it is un ne ces sa ry to co ns id er whe th er Mo sl ey ’s pr io r of fen se s

qu al ify as cri m es of vi ol en ce be cau se an y erro r th e di st ric t co ur t m ay ha ve co m m it te d

wou ld be ha rm le ss

. Se e Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 52 (a) (“ Any erro r, de fect

, irr eg ul ari ty, or

va ria nc e th at do es no t affe ct su bs ta nt ia l ri gh ts m us t b e d is reg ard ed .”). W it ho ut th e

care er of fen de r en ha nc em en t, Mo sl ey ’s g u i d el in e ran ge wou ld ha ve be en 70 -8 7

m on th s. W it h th e en ha nc em en t, hi s gu id el in e ran ge was 1 5 1

- 1 88 m on th s. The

di s tri ct co ur t ap pl ie d th e en ha nc em en t an d th en va rie d do wnwar d, im po si ng a

se nt en ce of 1 3 2 mo n t h s

. It ex pl ai ne d th at it s se nt en ce “ wou ld be th e sa m e wit h or

wit ho ut th e

. . . care er of

fen de r en ha nc em en t.” Fu rth erm or e, th e co ur t su pp le m en te d

th a t d e t erm in at io n wit h a th or ou gh an al y si s of th e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fact or s,

fin di ng th at a se nt en ce of 13 2 m on th s was su ffi c i en t bu t no t gr eat er th an ne ces sa ry

to acco m pl is h al l se nt en ci ng pu rp os es

. Thu s, we affi rm th e se nt en ce im po se d by th e

di st ric t co ur t. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Dav is

, 5 8 3 F.3 d 10 81

, 10 95 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )

-1 4-(“ Bec au se th e di st ric t co ur t ex pl ic it ly st at ed it wou ld ha ve i mp os ed [th e sa m e

se nt en ce] reg ard le ss of whe th er Dav is was a care er of fen de r, an y erro r on th e pa rt of

th e d is tri ct co ur t i s h arm le ss , and we affi rm .”).

IV.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we affi rm th e d is tri ct co ur t’s de ni al of ap pe ll an ts ’

m ot io ns to su pp res s an d t he sen te nc e im po se d o n M os le y

.

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

-1 5-