Opinion ID: 2975721
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Taking of Black’s Driver’s License

Text: Black first argues that he was unconstitutionally seized when Ragland took his driver’s license and walked back to the police cruiser.3 The government, for the most part, acknowledges that Ragland seized Black, though claims that this seizure was lawful. A person is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment if during a police encounter, an “officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen,” such that a person would not feel that he or she was free to leave. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434-35 (1991) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). When a police officer takes a motorist’s driver’s license and walks away with it, no reasonable motorist would feel free to drive away, as this would require the motorist to either drive without a license or abandon his or her car. Cf. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 501-02 (1983) (holding that defendant was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when government agents took defendant’s driver’s license and plane ticket, asked defendant to accompany them to a room in the airport, and did not indicate 3 We note that, under certain facts, Black may have a cognizable claim that he was unconstitutionally seized from the moment the officers pulled up behind his car. However, because this issue was, at best, “adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation,” Black has forfeited any argument that he was seized before Ragland took his license. Dillery v. City of Sandusky, 398 F.3d 562, 569 (6th Cir. 2005). In fact, Black even appears to concede that this initial stop was legal. See Appellant’s Br. 25 (“The officers, on routine patrol, may have been within their rights to stop and make sure that the occupants of the car were safe.” (Emphasis added)); id. at 28 (“In Mr. Black’s case, the officers did not even have a traffic violation to pursue. They might have checked on the safety of the car’s passengers, but then they should have left them alone to enjoy the evening.” (Emphasis added)). No. 06-6007 United States v. Black Page 8 to defendant that he was free to leave); United States v. Mullins, Nos. 93-6642, 94-5004, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 3135, at  (6th Cir. Feb. 16, 1995) (finding that no seizure under the Fourth Amendment had occurred during a traffic stop where there was no indication that defendant’s driver’s license or registration had been taken and he and others had not been ordered to remain in the car). We will uphold an officer’s seizure of an individual if, considering the totality of the circumstances, United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981), “the officer is able to point to specific and articulable facts which give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity,” United States v. Long, 464 F.3d 569, 572 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Hardnett, 804 F.2d 353, 355-56 (6th Cir. 1986)). See also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20-21 (1968). Here, there were several facts that, when viewed in their totality, gave rise to reasonable suspicion. First and foremost, upon approaching the vehicle but prior to taking Black’s license, Ragland smelled a strong odor of alcohol coming from the car. Tennessee law prohibits a person from driving or being “in physical control” of an automobile while under the influence of alcohol. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-401(a). A person may be convicted under this law if he is “found intoxicated either in or beside [a] parked vehicle and the circumstantial evidence strongly indicates that the defendant drove to the location in an intoxicated condition.” State v. Lawrence, 849 S.W.2d 761, 763 (Tenn. 1993). The smell of the alcohol, when paired with Ragland’s observation of Black in the driver’s seat with the keys in the ignition, certainly gave rise to reasonable suspicion that Black was violating Tennessee law. In addition, the other background facts that Ragland observed—that Black was parked in a closed park at night in a high crime area and that one of the car’s occupants placed something in the backseat as No. 06-6007 United States v. Black Page 9 the officers approached the car—bolstered Ragland’s suspicion. Cf.,United States v. Graham, 483 F.3d 431, 439 (6th Cir. 2007) (finding that upon approaching a vehicle, an officer’s observation of a car’s occupant placing something under his seat may contribute to an officer’s suspicion of criminal activity). In response, Black attacks Ragland’s credibility. For example, Black disputes that the area where he was parked was a “high crime area.” He also questions Ragland’s smelling of alcohol by noting that Ragland did not mention the strong smell of cigarettes, which Black maintains was present in the car; did not observe that Black “had slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, or was unsteady on his feet”; and did not administer field sobriety tests. Black also lists a number of factors which he apparently believes should have eliminated any suspicion: that Black and his girlfriend “were not hidden down a dark lane,” “were sitting out in the open,” and “were not being the least bit secretive”; that Ragland did not see “any crime being committed,” did not see “an open container of alcohol,” did not see or smell any illegal drugs, did not see any contraband, and did not observe “any activity that indicated the couple was engaged in prostitution”; and that Ragland observed that Black’s license had not expired. Appellant’s Br. 11, 18-19, 25. Although we must look to the totality of the circumstances in deciding whether reasonable suspicion existed, none of these factors negated Ragland’s smelling an odor of alcohol coming from the car nor the other facts that formed the basis for his suspicion. The fact that Officer Ragland did not observe any telltale signs of inebriation or evidence of another crime does not alter the fact that Ragland’s suspicion was reasonable. The magistrate judge’s factual findings that Ragland believed Black to have been parked in a “high crime area” and that Ragland had noted the smell of alcohol, were not clearly erroneous. Because Ragland No. 06-6007 United States v. Black Page 10 had, at the very least, reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, his seizure of Black was lawful. Black also argues that Ragland was unjustified in running a check on Black’s driver’s license, contending that “[n]othing in the record indicates a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Black had an expired or suspended license, or any outstanding warrants.” Appellant’s Br. 26-27. However, such routine driver’s license checks have been upheld by this court as within the scope of a lawful traffic stop. See, e.g., United States v. Hill, 195 F.3d 258, 269 (6th Cir. 1999) (“It is uncontested that in a valid traffic stop, an officer can request a driver’s license, registration or rental papers, run a computer check thereon, and issue a citation.”); see also Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 177, 186 (2004) (“Our decisions make clear that questions concerning a suspect’s identity are a routine and accepted part of many Terry stops”). The license check in the instant case raises no concerns, as Black was being lawfully detained because he was under investigation for driving under the influence. Therefore, we hold that Ragland did not unjustifiably prolong the seizure by performing a routine check on Black’s license.