Opinion ID: 71415
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The 20 July Stop and Search

Text: 18 Disregarding evidence of Wooten's tip, the district court found and concluded that the undisputed facts about the 20 July encounter established reasonable suspicion in that (1) Plaintiff accelerated well past the speed limit when he spotted the officers and (2) the officers observed the passenger throwing items out of the window and were aware of the recent arrest in which Plaintiff had been found with cocaine and a handgun. 19 Plaintiff argues that (1) the stop was pretextual and (2) the second search of the car, by Wooten, was impermissible. Plaintiff refers to the deposition of Wooten (in which he states that he and Jones would not have stopped Plaintiff but for the tip Wooten received) and claims the officers decided to stop Plaintiff well before they saw him speeding, that is, the stop was pretextual. 20 Mere surveillance or pursuit is no seizure; and the relevant inquiry is whether, at the time the police pulled Plaintiff over, the stop and search violated the Fourth Amendment. See Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 595-97, 109 S.Ct. 1378, 1381, 103 L.Ed.2d 628 (1989) (Violation of the Fourth Amendment requires an intentional acquisition of physical control.). 21 In this circuit, we have historically held that the standard for determining if a traffic stop was pretextual is whether a reasonable officer would have made the seizure in absence of 'illegitimate motivation.'  See United States v. Smith, 799 F.2d 704, 708 (1986) (emphasis in original). But, in Whren v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996), the Supreme Court rejected our former approach and held that the constitutional reasonableness of a traffic stop is determined irrespective of intent, either of the individual officer involved, id. at ---- - ----, 116 S.Ct. at 1773-1774, or any theoretical reasonable officer (or, as the Court termed it, virtual subjectivity). Id. at ---- - ----, 116 S.Ct. at 1774-1776. The only question is whether the suspect's behavior gave rise to probable cause sufficient to justify the seizure. Id. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 1775 ([T]he Fourth Amendment's concern with 'reasonableness' allows certain actions to be taken in certain circumstances, whatever the subjective intent.) (emphasis in original). 22 In Whren, the Court held that the police had probable cause to pull over the suspect where he violated the traffic laws in this way: 23 When the police car executed a U-turn in order to head back toward the truck, the Pathfinder turned suddenly to its right, without signalling, and sped off at an unreasonable speed. The police followed, and in a short while overtook the Pathfinder when it stopped behind other traffic at a red light. 24 Id. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 1772. The present circumstance is more compelling in that (1) Plaintiff was already known to the police as a drug dealer who had a history of carrying a gun and (2) his passenger was throwing things (then thought to be, later shown to be, drugs) out of the window of the car as they sped through a residential neighborhood at approximately 60 miles an hour. See also United States v. Strickland, 902 F.2d 937, 940 (11th Cir.1990) ([A] police officer may stop a vehicle '[w]hen there is ... probable cause to believe that a driver is violating any one of a multitude of applicable traffic and equipment regulations' relating to the operation of motor vehicles.) (quoting Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 655-57, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1397, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979)). 25 About Wooten's search, there can be no doubt that a weapon could have been hidden where Wooten looked and seemingly found not a gun, but cocaine: between the door and the driver's seat. See Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1051-52, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 3482, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983). That both Plaintiff and his passenger had been removed from the car and were in the officer's custody is inconsequential. Id. ([I]f the suspect is not placed under arrest, he will be permitted to reenter his automobile, and he will then have access to any weapons inside.) 5 In addition, a vehicle search pursuant to Michigan v. Long is not constitutionally infirm just because it involves a second officer conducting a second search. See United States v. Gleason, 25 F.3d 605, 608 (8th Cir.) (second weapons search by officer within permissible scope of search incident to an investigative stop), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 911, 115 S.Ct. 283, 130 L.Ed.2d 199 (1994). 26 As is noted above, the district court concluded that a genuine issue of fact exists about whether Wooten actually found the cocaine in the car; and, therefore, the district court denied Wooten's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's state law malicious prosecution claims. If the jury were to find that Wooten planted the cocaine, this planting of false evidence could constitute a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Federal Constitution and, accordingly, could give rise to liability under Section 1983. See e.g. Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 268-70, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 1177, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959) (due process right to fair trial); Whiting v. Traylor, 85 F.3d 581, 585 (11th Cir.1996) (right to be free of unreasonable seizures); Schneider v. Estelle, 552 F.2d 593, 595 (5th Cir.1977) (due process right to fair trial). It was well established in 1989 that fabricating incriminating evidence violated constitutional rights. See, e.g., Schneider, 552 F.2d at 595 (police officer's manufacturing of evidence violates due process right to fair trial regardless of prosecutor's ignorance of the falsified evidence). Accordingly, Wooten is entitled to no immunity for such claims. Thus, to the extent that the district court granted Wooten summary judgment on Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims based on the alleged planting of cocaine, the district court was mistaken. We vacate the judgment on this point for Wooten. 27