Court Opinion

ID: 9945124
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 14:00:55.976861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:22.901409
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13937    Document: 44-1     Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 1 of 9

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13937
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       KWUAN MONTRELL BAKER,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cr-14012-AMC-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13937      Document: 44-1       Date Filed: 02/27/2024     Page: 2 of 9

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  22-13937

       Before BRASHER, ABUDU, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Kwuan Montrell Baker appeals his convictions for posses-
       sion with intent to distribute fentanyl and possession of a firearm
       in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, challenging the district
       court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained follow-
       ing a traffic stop of a vehicle in which he was a passenger. After
       thorough review, we affirm.
              We review the denial of a motion to suppress evidence un-
       der a mixed standard, reviewing the court’s factfinding for clear er-
       ror and its application of the law to those facts de novo. United States
       v. Lewis, 674 F.3d 1298, 1302–03 (11th Cir. 2012). We grant sub-
       stantial deference to the credibility determinations of the district
       court, construing all facts in the light most favorable to the prevail-
       ing party. Id. at 1303. We must accept the version of events
       adopted by the district court “unless it is contrary to the laws of
       nature[] or is so inconsistent or improbable on its face that no rea-
       sonable factfinder could accept it.” United States v. Ramirez-Chilel,
       289 F.3d 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2002) (quotations omitted).
               The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable
       searches and seizures. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Under the exclu-
       sionary rule, evidence cannot be used against a defendant in a crim-
       inal trial where that evidence was obtained via an encounter with
       police that violated the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Per-
       kins, 348 F.3d 965, 969 (11th Cir. 2003). A traffic stop is a seizure
USCA11 Case: 22-13937       Document: 44-1       Date Filed: 02/27/2024      Page: 3 of 9

       22-13937                Opinion of the Court                            3

       within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Whren v. United
       States, 517 U.S. 806, 809–10 (1996). The Supreme Court previously
       set forth a probable cause standard for determining whether a traf-
       fic stop based on a traffic violation is valid. Id. at 810. However, it
       has since made clear that an officer needs only reasonable suspi-
       cion, not probable cause, to justify an automobile stop that is based
       on a traffic violation. Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54, 57, 60
       (2014); see also United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 880 n.15 (11th
       Cir. 2022) (en banc) (stating that “the Supreme Court has . . . made
       clear that reasonable suspicion is all that is required” to justify a
       traffic stop based on a traffic violation (citing Heien, 574 U.S. at 60)).
              The reasonableness of a seizure, including a traffic stop, “de-
       pends on a balance between the public interest and the individual’s
       right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law
       [enforcement] officers.” United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S.
       873, 878 (1975). “[R]easonable suspicion, like probable cause, is not
       readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.”
       United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989) (quotations omitted).
       Reasonable suspicion is “considerably less than proof of wrongdo-
       ing by a preponderance of the evidence” and less than probable
       cause, which is “a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a
       crime will be found.” Id. (quotations omitted). When deciding if
       reasonable suspicion exists, we must review the “totality of the cir-
       cumstances” to ascertain whether an officer had a “particularized
       and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing.” United States
       v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002) (quotations omitted). In so do-
       ing, we must give due weight to an officer’s experience. United
USCA11 Case: 22-13937      Document: 44-1      Date Filed: 02/27/2024     Page: 4 of 9

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-13937

       States v. Briggman, 931 F.2d 705, 709 (11th Cir. 1991). None of the
       suspect’s actions, however, need be criminal on their face to pro-
       vide a trained officer with reasonable suspicion. United States v. Lee,
       68 F.3d 1267, 1271 (11th Cir. 1995).
               An arresting officer’s state of mind, except for the facts he
       knows, is irrelevant to the existence of probable cause. Devenpeck
       v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 153 (2004). An officer’s “subjective reason
       for making the arrest need not be the criminal offense as to which
       the known facts provide probable cause.” Id. “A traffic stop based
       on an officer’s incorrect but reasonable assessment of facts does not
       violate the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Chanthasouxat,
       342 F.3d 1271, 1276 (11th Cir. 2003). Officers may rely on “com-
       mon sense conclusions” in assessing the facts. United States v. Cor-
       tez, 449 U.S. 411, 418 (1981). Reasonable suspicion is determined
       from the collective knowledge of all officers involved in the stop.
       United States v. Tapia, 912 F.2d 1367, 1370 (11th Cir. 1990).
               A pretextual stop occurs when an officer, hoping to find ev-
       idence of a greater offense, pursues a lesser offense that he nor-
       mally would not. United States v. Smith, 799 F.2d 704, 710 (11th Cir.
       1986). However, in Whren, the Supreme Court held that an of-
       ficer’s subjective motivations have no bearing on whether a traffic
       stop is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. 517 U.S. at 813.
       So, in United States v. Holloman, we held that, because the officers
       had probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred in con-
       nection with a traffic stop, they did not violate the Fourth Amend-
       ment, “notwithstanding their subjective desire to intercept any
USCA11 Case: 22-13937      Document: 44-1      Date Filed: 02/27/2024     Page: 5 of 9

       22-13937               Opinion of the Court                          5

       narcotics being transported.” 113 F.3d 192, 194 (11th Cir. 1997). In
       other words, while the Fourth Amendment requires courts to
       “weigh the governmental and individual interests implicated in a
       traffic stop,” the “result of that balancing is not in doubt where the
       search or seizure is based upon probable cause.” Whren, 517 U.S.
       at 816–17. Thus, a detailed “balancing” analysis -- that weighs the
       governmental and individual interests implicated in a traffic stop --
       is necessary only in “rare” situations that “involve[] seizures with-
       out probable cause” or “searches or seizures conducted in an ex-
       traordinary manner, unusually harmful to an individual’s privacy
       or even physical interests.” Id. at 817–18.
                Under Florida law, a person is guilty of driving under the
       influence if he is driving or in actual physical control over a vehicle
       and is affected by a substance to the extent that his normal faculties
       are impaired. Fla. Stat. § 316.193 (2021). In addition, Florida law
       prohibits driving with side windows tinted beyond certain limits;
       i.e., “[a] sunscreening material is authorized for such windows if,
       when applied to and tested on the glass of such windows on the
       specific motor vehicle, the material has a total solar reflectance of
       visible light of not more than 25 percent as measured on the non-
       film side and a light transmittance of at least 28 percent in the visi-
       ble light range.” Fla. Stat. § 316.2953 (2021). A suspected violation
       of Florida’s window-tint law “provides a valid basis for a traffic
       stop.” United States v. Pierre, 825 F.3d 1183, 1192 (11th Cir. 2016).
              Florida law also makes it “unlawful for the operator of any
       vehicle, having knowledge that he or she has been ordered to stop
USCA11 Case: 22-13937      Document: 44-1     Date Filed: 02/27/2024     Page: 6 of 9

       6                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13937

       such vehicle by a duly authorized law enforcement officer, willfully
       to refuse or fail to stop the vehicle in compliance with such [an]
       order.” Fla. Stat. § 316.1935(1) (2021). Florida caselaw interpreting
       this provision has found that a high-speed chase or other drawn-
       out form of fleeing is not required to trigger the attempted eluding
       provision of Fla. Stat. § 316.1935(1). Steil v. State, 974 So. 2d 589,
       589–90 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2008). Moreover, because it is sug-
       gestive of wrongdoing, unprovoked flight may serve as the basis
       for a reasonable suspicion that the person fleeing is involved in
       criminal activity. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124–25 (2000).
              Here, Baker moved to suppress evidence of a ﬁrearm, am-
       munition, and drugs that were obtained by law enforcement during
       a traﬃc stop of Jordan Kane’s vehicle, in which Baker was a passen-
       ger. This evidence was used to charge Baker with possession with
       intent to distribute fentanyl and possession of a ﬁrearm in further-
       ance of a drug traﬃcking crime. In arguing that the evidence ob-
       tained during the traﬃc stop should have been suppressed, Baker
       claims that no alleged traﬃc violation occurred, that law enforce-
       ment otherwise lacked probable cause to stop Kane’s vehicle, and
       that the stop was pretextual. Thus, Baker urges us to review the
       reasonableness of the traﬃc stop based on the circumstances that
       surrounded it, including the oﬃcers’ subjective motivations for the
       stop. However, as we’ve explained, an arresting oﬃcer’s state of
       mind, except for the facts that he knows, is irrelevant to the exist-
       ence of probable cause, and an oﬃcer’s “subjective reason for mak-
       ing the arrest need not be the criminal oﬀense as to which the
       known facts provide probable cause.” Devenpeck, 543 U.S. at 153.
USCA11 Case: 22-13937     Document: 44-1     Date Filed: 02/27/2024    Page: 7 of 9

       22-13937              Opinion of the Court                        7

       In other words, so long as oﬃcers had a reasonable suspicion of a
       traﬃc violation by Kane, it is irrelevant whether the stop was pre-
       textual or that oﬃcers did not arrest Kane based on any or all these
       grounds. Id.; Holloman, 113 F.3d at 194; see also Campbell, 26 F.4th
       at 880 n.15.
              The district court found that the oﬃcers had reasonable sus-
       picion to stop Kane based on three grounds: (1) driving under the
       inﬂuence, (2) an illegal window tint, and (3) attempting to ﬂee from
       oﬃcers. As we’ll explain, Deputy Evan Ridle and the other depu-
       ties of the St. Lucie County Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce (“SLCSO”) had more
       than enough reasonable suspicion to stop Kane based on the ﬁrst
       ground -- driving under the inﬂuence -- so we’ll address that issue
       in detail, and need not address the others.
               As the record reﬂects, at the time of the traﬃc stop, Deputy
       Ridle had knowledge of Kane from previous arrests for drug cases
       in St. Lucie County, some of which he had personally performed,
       and Ridle knew that Kane had recently failed a drug test, failed to
       show up for a drug test on the day prior to the traﬃc stop, and had
       a roommate believed to be selling narcotics. As for Deputy To-
       maszewski, he initially saw Kane stop that day at a smoke shop that
       was known to sell detox-related products to help pass drug tests.
       After Kane ﬁnished an appointment at the courthouse, To-
       maszewski observed Kane’s head lean out the side of his vehicle
       and saw “the vomit coming down and splattering on the asphalt
       there” and reported this over radio to other deputies. Kane then
       left the parking lot and drove toward an area known for “gun
USCA11 Case: 22-13937        Document: 44-1        Date Filed: 02/27/2024        Page: 8 of 9

       8                         Opinion of the Court                     22-13937

       violence, drug sales, prostitution, and gang members” where he
       stopped at a residence and remained in the driveway for ﬁve
       minutes. After Kane departed from the residence, Deputy Ridle
       saw Kane drifting over the center line and failing to maintain his
       lane. Ridle said that he believed that Kane’s failure to maintain his
       single lane was because the narcotics that Kane had consumed
       were taking eﬀect. 1
               Taking into account the collective knowledge the SLCSO of-
       ﬁcers involved in the stop and their “commonsense conclusions,”
       law enforcement had a suﬃcient “particularized and objective ba-
       sis” for suspecting legal wrongdoing by Kane -- that is, they reason-
       ably could have concluded from Kane’s activities shortly before the
       traﬃc stop that he was intoxicated by narcotics while driving and
       was therefore in violation of Fla. Stat. § 316.193. Cortez, 449 U.S. at
       418; Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273; Tapia, 912 F.2d at 1370. Moreover, noth-
       ing in the record suggests that this case amounted to a “rare” situ-
       ation involving a “seizure[] without probable cause” or a “search[]
       or seizure[] conducted in an extraordinary manner, unusually
       harmful to an individual’s privacy or even physical interests.”
       Whren, 517 U.S. at 817–18. Rather, as we’ve explained, the oﬃcers

       1 In considering Baker’s claim, we must give due weight to Ridle’s experience

       with users of narcotics as an SLCSO Deputy for approximately five years and
       a member of the Special Investigations Section, Narcotics, Vice Division.
       Briggman, 931 F.2d at 709. We add that the district court found Ridle’s testi-
       mony credible, and we must accept this version of the events because his tes-
       timony was not “improbable on its face” and the government prevailed in the
       district court. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d at 749; Lewis, 674 F.3d at 1302–03.
USCA11 Case: 22-13937      Document: 44-1      Date Filed: 02/27/2024     Page: 9 of 9

       22-13937               Opinion of the Court                          9

       had reasonable suspicion to stop Kane based upon driving under
       the inﬂuence, which means that this case “is governed by the usual
       rule that probable cause to believe the law has been broken ‘out-
       balances’ private interest in avoiding police contact.” Id. at 818. Ac-
       cordingly, the initiation of the traﬃc stop of Kane’s vehicle -- which
       led to the seizure of the evidence that was used against Baker -- did
       not violate the Fourth Amendment, and we aﬃrm the district
       court’s denial of Baker’s motion to suppress.
              AFFIRMED.