Court Opinion

ID: 9494279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:33:54.524104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:19.511630
License: Public Domain

TUNHEIM, District Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I would have reversed the district court’s decision and suppressed the drug evidence uncovered during Officer Schism’s search of the vehicle.
In my opinion, this case is controlled by the Court’s earlier decision in United States v. Beck, 140 F.3d 1129 (8th Cir.1998). In Beck, the Court concluded that the following circumstances did not create reasonable articulable suspicion: (1) Beck was driving a rental car which had been rented by an absent third party; (2) the car was licensed in California and was stopped in Arkansas; (3) there was fast food trash on the floor; (4) there was no visible luggage in the passenger compartment; (5) Beck’s nervous demeanor; (6) Beck’s trip from a source state to a drug demand state; and (7) the officer’s disbelief of Beck’s explanation for the trip. Beck, 140 F.3d at 1137.
The majority attempts to distinguish Beck on the grounds that the passengers in the car were “unusually” and “exceptionally” nervous and that they provided *735Officer Schism with vague and confused answers regarding the details surrounding their trip. I am troubled by the Court’s reliance on such an imprecise standard as the relative nervousness of the passengers to distinguish Beck. There is little doubt that a vast majority of travelers stopped by law enforcement officers are nervous to some degree. It also seems beyond dispute that individuals manifest that nervousness in different ways. The majority’s attempt to distinguish Beck on the basis of the passengers’ “unusually nervous” or “exceptionally nervous” behavior leaves law enforcement officers with little guidance as to what constitutes reasonable articulable suspicion, and district courts with a standard that is very difficult to apply.
In addition, it is certainly not unusual for any vehicle on the road to contain food wrappers, a cellular phone, a road atlas, a pillow and a blanket. Indeed, many might argue that prudent travelers should carry most, if not all, of these items in their vehicle. Moreover, the “vague and confused” answers of the passengers do not persuade me that this case is distinguishable from Beck. The driver of the vehicle told Officer Schism that the passengers were on their way back to Indiana after having taken a five-year-old child, whom he referred to as defendant’s “cousin,” back to the child’s parents’ home in Hutchinson, Kansas. The driver explained to Schism that the child had been staying with them in Indiana over the holidays. Later, defendant told Officer Schism that she and the others had taken the child, her “old man’s nephew,” back to Kansas after the child had stayed with them for a few days. The only apparent “confusion” in the two stories was the fact that defendant could not name the particular city in Kansas where they had dropped the child off.
The initial stop by Officer Schism in this case was proper. However, once he issued the warning for speeding and returned the driver’s license and rental papers for the vehicle to the driver, the stop was complete. United States v. $404,905 in U.S. Currency, 182 F.3d 643, 648-49 (8th Cir.1999); Beck, 140 F.3d at 1135. After that point, the officer’s questions about searching the vehicle were consensual until defendant was told that the vehicle would be subjected to a dog sniff. At that time, the Court must inquire as to whether Officer Schism had reasonable articulable suspicion to detain the passengers while waiting for the canine unit.
The facts, when viewed in totality, do not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion, but in my opinion are consistent with the behavior of most innocent travelers. While law enforcement officers certainly should be permitted to rely on their experience and expertise in detecting criminal behavior, there is a point at which “experience” becomes only an “unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch.’ ” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). I believe this case is one of those situations in which that line has been crossed.