Opinion ID: 165698
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Vague, Evasive, and Inconsistent Answers

Text: 37 Three of the factors invoked by the district court related to Mr. Santos's vague, evasive, or inconsistent answers to questions about his travel plans: (4) Defendant gave vague, evasive, and inconsistent answers concerning his length of stay; ... (6) Defendant knew his mother's address, but not her telephone number; (8) Defendant's sister had a secure job in New York but was moving to California without having a job there. Op. at 15. The details of the conversation between Trooper Peech and Mr. Santos are set forth in the Background section of the district court's Order: 38 Peech and Defendant conversed while the warning citation was being issued and routine driving status was being checked. Defendant stated that he was going to New York City to visit his mother and move his sister out to California. Defendant said that he had last seen his mother a year ago and that his sister was recently divorced and worked for the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in New York, but that she had not yet found work in California. When Trooper Peech asked Defendant how long he would stay in New York, Defendant was very vague, stating that his job only gave him a couple of weeks. When Peech asked if he would be there for a week or so, Defendant responded, Yeah, more or less. Peech noticed that Defendant became visibly nervous. Defendant suddenly changed topics from discussing the details of his trip to the weather, stating that he heard that it would be snowing on his return trip.... 39 Defendant stated that his mother owned a house in New York City and that he worked as a salesman at a Ford dealership in California. Defendant also said that New York was another two days away, and that he would be driving back to California. At approximately 3:27 p.m., Peech explained the warning citation and returned Defendant's documents. Defendant stated that he would have his cruise control checked in New York. Peech said, You have a safe trip, Mr. Santos, and Defendant opened the door to exit the patrol car. However, he then initiated another conversation with Trooper Peech about the patrol car and how some law enforcement agencies lease their vehicles. Afterwards, Peech said, You have a safe trip, okay? Defendant then exited the patrol car. 40 However, in front of the patrol car, at approximately 3:29 p.m., Trooper Peech re-initiated contact with Defendant and requested permission to ask more questions. Defendant replied, Sure. He told Peech that he was going to New York to visit his mother. When Peech asked if he was also going to pick up his sister, he replied, Hopefully. When Peech asked if he was going to stay in New York three to five days, Defendant responded, Three or five days. Defendant also said that his mother owned a brownstone house in New York, and he gave an address for it, but he did not know the phone number. Defendant confirmed that his sister was recently divorced and moving to California without having found a job there. When Peech asked what his sister did for DMV, Defendant replied, Whatever they do in DMV. 41 Defendant said that he did not fly to New York because his sister was afraid to fly, and he had two weeks off from work. When asked what his sister's name was, Defendant said, It is going to be Visceranos, after she changes it back to her maiden name. Defendant then indicated that his sister was in fact his half-sister, who was thirty-nine years old with three small children. He could not remember their ages but thought that they were three or four years old. Defendant then became irritated and asked why he was being questioned after having already received the traffic warning. Trooper Peech told him that he was just doing his job, and that it was cop stuff. 42 Op. at 3-5. 43 We accept the district court's characterization of some of Mr. Santos's answers as vague, evasive, and inconsistent. At first, Mr. Santos stated he would stay in New York about a week or so, and later amended this to three or five days. At first, he called his sister his sister, and later said she was really his half-sister. He did not provide specifics regarding the duties his sister performed for the DMV, and said he did not know his mother's telephone number or the ages of his sister's children. 44 As part of the totality of the circumstances, Trooper Peech was entitled to view Mr. Santos's answers as some indication that his story about going to New York to pick up his sister was just that: a story. Confusion about details is often an indication that a story is being fabricated on the spot. Mr. Santos volunteered information about his family, but was unable to supply corroborative details ordinarily known to a family member, and he seemed to shift his ground upon close questioning. Other courts have accepted similarly evasive or inconsistent accounts of travel plans as part of the reasonable suspicion calculus. See Weaver v. Shadoan, 340 F.3d 398, 408 (6th Cir.2003) (An officer's doubt regarding expressed travel plans or the purpose of a trip can also be bolstered by a passenger's inconsistent statements.); United States v. Johnson, 58 F.3d 356, 357-58 (8th Cir.1995). 45 We stress, however, that conversation of this sort is not sufficient, in and of itself, to warrant detaining or searching a motorist. With the benefit of hindsight — the discovery of commercial quantities of narcotics in his car — we know that Mr. Santos's story was just a cover. But the inconsistencies and gaps in his story were not so significant that they would arouse genuine suspicion in the absence of other indications of wrongdoing. Many modern people, even innocent ones, program important phone numbers into their telephones and no longer memorize them. It may be lamentable that an uncle would not know the ages of his nieces and nephews, but it is hardly an indication that crime is afoot. Moreover, many motorists, even innocent ones, might think it none of the trooper's business how long they were going to stay in New York, or where their sisters worked, or why their recently divorced sisters are planning to move to California, or what work they might get when they arrive. 6 The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that refusal to answer law enforcement questions cannot form the basis of reasonable suspicion. See Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) (We have consistently held that a refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure.) (citing INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216-17, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984); Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 498, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) (plurality); Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52-53, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979)). Vague answers may sometimes be a polite way to sidestep impertinent questions. This might also explain Mr. Santos's attempt to shift the subject to the weather. We therefore do not give much independent weight to this factor. But in conjunction with other factors, it contributed to Trooper Peech's determination of reasonable suspicion.