Opinion ID: 6329159
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Seizure of the Impala

Text: Perez argues that the Impala was impermissibly seized because the traffic infraction that formed the basis for the stop—the Impala’s illegal window tinting—was resolved after he was arrested for driving with a suspended license. He argues that the Impala should have been released to Redday at that point. He contends that the magistrate judge incorrectly analyzed the continued seizure of the Impala under the reasonable-suspicion standard and that probable cause was the correct standard because Redday asked Trooper Mlynar to release the Impala to her. He argues that the district court erred by adopting the magistrate judge’s analysis. We disagree and affirm. “An officer conducting a traffic stop who discovers information leading to reasonable suspicion of an unrelated crime may extend the stop and broaden the investigation.” United States v. Woods, 829 F.3d 675, 679 (8th Cir. 2016). “A delay that ‘prolongs—i.e., adds time to—the stop,’ to conduct investigatory actions unrelated to the purposes of the stop is impermissible unless it is supported by reasonable suspicion.” Sanchez, 955 F.3d at 674 (quoting Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 357).4 The magistrate judge correctly applied the reasonable-suspicion standard in assessing whether the Impala was impermissibly seized under the totality of the 4 The cases upon which Perez relies in arguing that probable cause is the correct standard—Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), and Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 1663 (2018)—address the automobile exception outside the context of a traffic stop. -10- circumstances. See United States v. Callison, 2 F.4th 1128, 1132 (8th Cir. 2021) (holding that inconsistent answers to routine travel questions contributed to reasonable suspicion); Sanchez, 955 F.3d at 675 (concluding that the fact that someone would lend his car to unlicensed drivers, especially if one of those drivers could not readily name the owner, contributed to reasonable suspicion). Trooper Mlynar did not illegally seize the Impala because he justifiably extended the traffic stop. 2. Impoundment and Second Inventory Search of the Impala Perez argues that the Impala was unlawfully impounded because a willing driver was available and that the impoundment did not follow NDHP’s impound policy. The impounding of a vehicle passes constitutional muster so long as the decision to impound is guided by a standard policy—even a policy that provides officers with discretion as to the proper course of action to take—and the decision is made “on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity.” United States v. Le, 474 F.3d 511, 514 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 375 (1987)). NDHP’s impoundment policy states, in relevant part, “If the owner does not provide for the vehicle’s removal and the vehicle constitutes a hazard, the officer must arrange for the vehicle’s removal and [an inventory search form] shall be completed.” R. Doc. 166-4, at 13. We conclude that Trooper Mlynar’s decision to impound the Impala was guided by NDHP’s policy and that the decision was made on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity. Trooper Mlynar was permitted to conduct a second inventory search of the Impala four days after it was impounded. The initial inventory search on the side of -11- the highway while he was waiting for the tow truck was rushed. Following impoundment, “[p]olice may conduct a warrantless search of a lawfully-impounded vehicle even in the absence of probable cause.” United States v. Kennedy, 427 F.3d 1136, 1143 (8th Cir. 2005). “The central question in evaluating the propriety of an inventory search is whether, in the totality of the circumstances, the search was reasonable.” Id. “[I]nventories pursuant to standard police procedures are reasonable.” South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 372 (1976). The propriety of a second inventory search is an issue of first impression for our court, but the Second Circuit addressed this issue in United States v. Williams, 930 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 2019). The defendant in Williams had moved to suppress a loaded firearm found during a second inventory search of a rental car that he was driving on the day of his arrest. Id. at 50. Detectives had commenced an initial inventory search after they brought the defendant to the local jail to process his arrest and did not find any contraband. Id. at 51. After the defendant learned the rental car was going to be towed to the rental agency, he became alarmed and asked for his phone call. Id. A detective overheard him say “at a high pitch and fast pace,” which the detective took to indicate that his “stress level was elevated,” that the individual on the receiving end of the call needed to “‘come get this car right now’ because the police were ‘looking to tow it.’” Id. This prompted the detectives to conduct the second inventory search, during which they found the firearm at issue. Id. at 51–52. The defendant in Williams principally argued that the second inventory search was impermissible because the patrol guide in that case was silent as to the validity of multiple inventory searches. Id. at 55. Perez makes a similar argument. The Second Circuit rejected this argument, reasoning that every detail of search procedure need not be governed by a standardized policy and that “[a] police department’s procedures must simply be adequate to ‘safeguard the interests protected by the Fourth Amendment.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Lopez, 547 F.3d 364, 371 (2d Cir. 2008)). It held that the second inventory search did not run afoul of that principle, even if -12- such a search was not specifically provided for in the patrol guide. Id. We have similarly held “[r]equiring an officer to conduct an inventory search pursuant to ‘standardized criteria’ or an ‘established routine’ does not mean that the search must be made in a ‘totally mechanical’ fashion.” Kennedy, 427 F.3d at 1143 (quoting United States v. Petty, 367 F.3d 1009, 1012 (8th Cir. 2004)). The Second Circuit in Williams, acknowledging that “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness,’” held that it was reasonable for detectives to conclude that the defendant’s behavior “suggested a need to go back and check their work in connection with the inventory search that they had just performed.” 930 F.3d at 55 (quoting Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006)). “[W]hether a search and seizure is unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case . . . .” Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58, 59 (1967). While here there was no tip that prompted Trooper Mlynar to conduct his second inventory search, his second search was also reasonable given the rushed circumstances of his first search. We conclude that Trooper Mlynar’s second inventory search was reasonable because it was done in accordance with the general police routine of taking an accounting of items in police custody to protect the owner’s property and also to protect the police against disputes over unaccounted-for property. 3. Search of the Impala After K9 Castor’s Sniff Perez argues that K9 Castor lacked the requisite accuracy and reliability set forth in Florida v. Harris to establish probable cause for the search of the Impala conducted after her sniff. “We review de novo the district court’s legal determination of probable cause.” United States v. Gonzalez, 781 F.3d 422, 429 (8th Cir. 2015). -13- [T]he framework courts should use to determine whether a drug dog sniff is reliable enough to give police officers probable cause to conduct a search . . . . is “whether all the facts surrounding a dog’s alert, viewed through the lens of common sense, would make a reasonably prudent person think that a search would reveal contraband or evidence of a crime.” United States v. Holleman, 743 F.3d 1152, 1157 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Harris, 568 U.S. at 248). Our review of the record satisfies us that the government sufficiently established K9 Castor’s accuracy and reliability such that her alert could supply probable cause to search. If a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled setting, a court can presume (subject to any conflicting evidence offered) that the dog’s alert provides probable cause to search. The same is true, even in the absence of formal certification, if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluated his proficiency in locating drugs. Harris, 568 U.S. at 246–47. “This presumption may be overcome if a defendant can show, either through cross-examination or introducing his own fact or expert witness, the inadequacy of a certification or training program or that the circumstances surrounding a canine alert undermined the case for probable cause.” Gonzalez, 781 F.3d at 429. Perez’s arguments about K9 Castor’s certification and reliability testing and Trooper’s Mlynar’s training and handling lack merit. Though not trained by an outside organization, K9 Castor was certified using the same Polizeispuerhandpruefrung (PSP)-based certification protocol that the Wyoming Police Service Dog Association uses. She was also trained using a program that consists of 200 hours of training and that is approved by the North Dakota Peace Officer Standards Training Board. Lastly, the NDHP certification test requires -14- handlers to score 80 percent or higher on two written tests and the dog-and-handler team to pass a final test before initial certification. We find that K9 Castor has been certified by a bona fide organization. K9 Castor’s reliability also passes muster because the record shows that before her certification tests, other dogs proofed the search area by ensuring that no other odors of controlled substances were present beyond what the certifying official had placed there. In addition to challenging K9 Castor’s certification, Perez argues that her sniff was unreliable because she has previously falsely indicated the presence of drugs during training. Her degree of accuracy, however, is higher than the accuracy rates of other drug-sniffing dogs which have been deemed reliable. See Holleman, 743 F.3d at 1157 (affirming the denial of a motion to suppress evidence discovered as a result of a sniff by a dog with 57 percent “in-field” accuracy); United States v. Donnelly, 475 F.3d 946, 955 (8th Cir. 2007) (affirming the denial of a motion to suppress evidence discovered as a result of a sniff by a dog with 54 percent in-field accuracy). This court in Holleman also considered the results of annual recertifications that occurred between the dog-and-handler team’s initial certification and the search at issue. K9 Castor and Trooper Mlynar have similarly been recertified annually, which further supports a finding of K9 Castor’s reliability. Perez also argues that Trooper Mlynar impermissibly cued K9 Castor to lay down by tapping the passenger side of the Impala. Trooper Stern testified that tapping on a car is “just a way of guiding the dog to where they want that dog to search” as part of the systematic, detailed search portion of a sniff. R. Doc. 196, at 74. We are not convinced that K9 Castor was impermissibly cued before alerting and prompting the search at issue. Further, Trooper Mlynar’s suspicions about Perez that developed before K9 Castor’s sniff contributed to the circumstances which, viewed through the lens of common sense, would lead a reasonable person to believe that a search would reveal contraband or evidence of a crime. See Holleman, 743 F.3d at 1158; Harris, 56 U.S. at 248. -15- 4. State Court Search Warrants Perez argues that the state court search warrants were improperly issued under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), because they contained material omissions and because the evidence supporting the warrants were the fruits of an unconstitutional search and seizure. To prevail on a Franks claim the defendant[] must show: . . . . (1) that facts were omitted with the intent to make, or in reckless disregard of whether they make, the affidavit misleading; and (2) that the affidavit, if supplemented by the omitted information, could not support a finding of probable cause. United States v. Reinholz, 245 F.3d 765, 774 (8th Cir. 2001). In determining if an affiant’s statements were made with reckless disregard for the truth, the test is whether, after viewing all the evidence, the affiant must have entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his statements or had obvious reasons to doubt the accuracy of the information he reported. United States v. McIntyre, 646 F.3d 1107, 1114 (8th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Recklessness, however, may be ‘inferred from the fact of omission of information from an affidavit . . . when the material omitted would have been ‘clearly critical’ to the finding of probable cause.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Mashek, 606 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2010)). Perez argues that the warrant applications contained material omissions because Trooper Mlynar did not include “information regarding K9 Castor’s reliability and his compliance with impound procedures.” Appellant’s Br. at 34. As to the first prong of the inquiry, “[t]here is no evidence that [Trooper Mlynar] omitted the facts with the intent to make, or in reckless disregard of whether the omissions made, the affidavit misleading.” United States v. Wilson, 324 F. App’x 546, 548 (8th -16- Cir. 2009) (unpublished per curiam). And as to the second prong of the inquiry, even if Trooper Mlynar intentionally or recklessly omitted information about K9 Castor’s reliability, Perez cannot show that an affidavit that includes that information could not support a finding of probable cause. We have found that K9 Castor’s sniff was reliable and that the search conducted as a result of her sniff was supported by probable cause. See supra Part III.A.3. For that reason, the items found during that search are therefore not fruits of an unconstitutional search. We have also concluded that Trooper Mlynar complied with NDHP’s impound procedures. See supra Part III.A.2. The items found during the search of the Impala after impoundment are not fruits of an unconstitutional seizure. Perez’s arguments focus on Trooper Mlynar’s omissions in his warrant applications, but a North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation Agent applied for the warrants for the electronic devices found in the Impala; furthermore, a Bureau of Indian Affairs Division of Drug Enforcement Special Agent applied for the warrants for the social media accounts. To the extent that Perez argues that those warrant applications were deficient in the same ways as the warrant application filed by Trooper Mlynar, we reject his arguments for the same reasons.