Opinion ID: 168633
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Tahoe Search Was Constitutional under the Automobile Exception to the Warrant Requirement.

Text: 19 Mr. Stewart next argues that the district court erred by holding that the search of his Tahoe was a lawful search incident to arrest. Citing this Court's decision in United States v. Dennison, 410 F.3d 1203, 1209 (10th Cir.2005), the government concedes that this ruling is erroneous because Mr. Stewart had left the scene and was en route to the police station when the police searched his Tahoe. Appellee's Br. 13-14. The government nevertheless asks us to affirm on the alternative ground that the search was justified under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Because there are sufficient grounds in the record to support the government's alternative theory, see United States v. Ledford, 443 F.3d 702, 707 (10th Cir.2005), we affirm on that basis. 20 The police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained. California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 580, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991). A canine alert gives rise to probable cause to search a vehicle. United States v. Williams, 403 F.3d 1203, 1207 (10th Cir.2005). This is so even when the dog alert occurs during a warrantless sniff on the exterior of a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop because such sniffs do not implicate the Fourth Amendment. Id. (citing Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 409, 125 S.Ct. 834, 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (2005)). 21 The record reveals that Sergeant Winterton had two objectively reasonable bases for stopping Mr. Stewart's Tahoe. First, it lacked a front license plate. Second, its rear license plate was obscured. R. Vol. III, at 28-29. The traffic stop was therefore lawful. And after Sergeant Winterton arrested Mr. Stewart for keeping a loaded gun in his car, another violation of Utah law, Deputy Royal arrived and deployed Boomer before anyone searched the Tahoe. Id. at 60-61. Boomer alerted on the Tahoe's rear driver's side by aggressively scratching at it. Id. at 50-51. This alert gave rise to probable cause to search Mr. Stewart's Tahoe and its contents. The officers did so, and discovered the drugs, only after Boomer alerted. Id. at 61. Based on these facts, we hold that the officers' search of Mr. Stewart's Tahoe was lawful under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. 22 Mr. Stewart, however, urges us not to affirm on this basis. He states that he first learned of Boomer's sniff at the evidentiary hearing, and that the belated disclosure prevented him from adequately investigating it. While the timing of the disclosure may be suspect, Mr. Stewart nonetheless was able to investigate fully. His lawyer thoroughly cross-examined Deputy Royal about Boomer's training and experience. He then asked for and received more than ten days to further investigate Boomer's qualifications and Deputy Royal's report. His post-hearing investigation did not produce any new evidence that Mr. Stewart could have used to expand the scope of Deputy Royal's cross-examination. Accordingly, the exact time that Mr. Stewart learned of Boomer's alert does not change the Fourth Amendment calculus here. 23 Similarly, Mr. Stewart urges us to ignore Boomer's alert because the district court instructed the government to skip the dog and described the dog sniff as superfluous. R. Vol. V, at 24-25. The district court made these comments, however, during oral argument on Mr. Stewart's motion to suppress, not during the evidentiary hearings on that motion. The court gave Mr. Stewart tremendous latitude in the evidentiary hearing to conduct whatever inquiry he felt was appropriate. Only after it decided that the search was properly categorized as an inventory search or a search incident to arrest did the district court limit the prosecutor's arguments about the dog sniff. 24 We are not limited by the district court's legal conclusions. Indeed, this is precisely the type of case susceptible to affirmance on alternate grounds: the defendant had every opportunity to develop a factual record on this issue. Our view of those facts persuades us that the dog sniff may be serendipitous, but it is not superfluous.