Opinion ID: 2784705
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ismael’s Motion to Suppress4

Text: Ismael contends the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the warrantless search of Jose’s truck. In Ismael’s view, the officers lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop because the informant had no prior track record at the department and the officers failed to corroborate independently the information he provided. 4 Although Ismael and Jose both raised this issue in the district court, only Ismael challenges the district court’s denial of his motion. -6- “We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo but the underlying factual determinations for clear error, giving due weight to inferences drawn by law enforcement officials.” United States v. Clutter, 674 F.3d 980, 982 (8th Cir. 2012). “‘We affirm . . . unless the district court’s decision is unsupported by substantial evidence, based on an erroneous interpretation of applicable law, or, based on the entire record, it is clear a mistake was made.’” United States v. Wallace, 713 F.3d 422, 426 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Bay, 662 F.3d 1033, 1035 (8th Cir. 2011)). “A traffic stop constitutes a ‘seizure’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, see Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979), and therefore must be reasonable to survive constitutional scrutiny.” United States v. Martinez, 358 F.3d 1005, 1009 (8th Cir. 2004). “[T]he Fourth Amendment is satisfied if the [stop] is supported by reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity ‘may be afoot.’” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002) (quoting United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989)). “The ‘reasonable suspicion’ necessary to justify such a stop ‘is dependent upon both the content of information possessed by police and its degree of reliability.’” Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. ___, ___, 134 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (2014) (quoting Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330 (1990)). In evaluating reasonable suspicion, we “must look at the ‘totality of the circumstances’ of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a ‘particularized and objective basis’ for suspecting legal wrongdoing.” Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273 (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981)). “A confidential informant’s tip may support a reasonable suspicion if it has sufficient indicia of reliability, such as the informant’s track record as a reliable source or independent corroboration of the tip.” United States v. Manes, 603 F.3d 451, 456 (8th Cir. 2010) (internal citation omitted); accord United States v. Winarske, 715 F.3d 1063, 1067 (8th Cir. 2013) (“[I]f an informant is otherwise unknown to police and has no proven track record of reliability, police may deem an informant credible and make -7- a finding of probable cause when an informant’s information is at least partly corroborated.”). “An informant may also prove himself to be a reliable source for law enforcement by providing predictive information about a meeting time or place.” Winarske, 715 F.3d at 1067. The reliability of an informant’s information “is bolstered if the tip is corroborated not only by matching an identity or description, but also by accurately describing a suspect’s future behavior.” Manes, 603 F.3d at 456. In this case, the totality of the circumstances sufficiently established the informant’s reliability and provided reasonable suspicion for the stop. As part of his ongoing investigation, which included electronic monitoring, Officer Ballantini suspected the informant was obtaining drugs from Grand Island for sale in Des Moines. When a search of the informant’s home revealed drugs, the informant—trying to provide useful information to save his own skin—quickly agreed to cooperate with the police and help them catch his supplier. Confirming what the police already suspected about his drug activity based on their prior investigation, the informant described his supplier and the blue truck he drove to their first meeting in Grand Island. With officers present, the informant contacted his supplier and arranged for delivery of three pounds of methamphetamine to Des Moines. On the day the drugs arrived, the informant frequently updated the police with details about the meeting, including the time, location, and method of the exchange. The informant even forwarded Jose’s texts and instructions directly to the police. Visually monitoring the informant’s meeting at the time and location the informant had said it would take place, the police quickly confirmed the informant’s description of both his supplier and the blue truck with Nebraska plates the informant predicted his supplier would drive. As the meeting ended and the exchange was about to take place at a different location, the informant signaled the police according to Officer Ballantini’s plan—driving south from the gas station to let Officer Ballantini know the drugs were in the truck. As the informant drove south with Jose behind him, the informant called Officer Ballantini to tell him Jose had hidden the drugs in the gas -8- tank. When Sergeant Kouski began following the blue truck, Jose and Ismael reacted suspiciously, see, e.g., Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 275-76, abandoning the informant, turning abruptly into a restaurant parking lot, and trying to distance themselves from the truck. By the time Sergeant Kouski made the stop, the officers were well aware of the basis for the informant’s knowledge and had corroborated the vast majority of what he had told them. The officers had more than enough reliable information to establish a “‘particularized and objective basis’ for suspecting legal wrongdoing,” Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273 (quoting Cortez, 449 U.S. at 417), before stopping Jose’s truck. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 49 F.3d 1346, 1349 (8th Cir. 1995) (affirming probable cause for arrest based on a first-time informant’s “accurate and detailed information about” a drug delivery arranged in the officers’ presence where the informant’s predictions about the time and place of the delivery and his description of his supplier and his vehicle “were corroborated by the independent observations of police officers”). The district court did not err by denying Ismael’s motion to suppress.