U.S. v. Johnson, 94-3233
| Citation | 58 F.3d 356 |
| Decision Date | 22 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-3233,94-3233 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald T. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
Nancy Graven, Federal Public Defender, Springfield, MO, argued, for appellant.
David P. Rush, Asst. U.S. Atty., Springfield, MO, argued, for appellee.
Before LOKEN, Circuit Judge, GODBOLD, * Senior Circuit Judge, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.
After conditionally pleading guilty to a drug trafficking offense, Ronald T. Johnson appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a consensual search of his automobile. Johnson argues that the initial traffic stop was pretextual and that, even if the traffic stop was valid, his consent was unconstitutionally obtained during an unlawful extension of that stop. We affirm.
Corporal Jack McMullin of the Missouri Highway Patrol stopped Johnson's car on eastbound I-44 for tailgating while exceeding the speed limit. McMullin took Johnson to the patrol car while McMullin completed a computer check of Johnson's driver's license and vehicle registration. The vehicle was not registered to Johnson, who explained that he had borrowed it from a friend. While waiting for the results of the computer inquiry, McMullin asked Johnson about his trip. Johnson replied that he, his wife, and their child had driven from Indiana to Las Vegas, had spent one day gambling away $200, and were now returning to Indiana.
The computer check revealed that Johnson could only drive in the presence of another licensed driver. Leaving Johnson in the patrol car, McMullin then returned to Johnson's vehicle to verify that Mrs. Johnson was a licensed driver. While reviewing Mrs. Johnson's valid Indiana license, McMullin asked her about their trip. She first said they were coming from California, then said they were coming from Laughlin, Nevada, where they had visited relatives for two or three days. Corporal McMullin asked Mrs. Johnson if there was anything illegal in the vehicle and, when she said no, obtained her consent to search the car. McMullin then returned to the patrol car, asked Johnson if there was anything illegal in his vehicle, and obtained his consent to search. To that point, the traffic stop had lasted approximately ten minutes.
In inspecting the vehicle, McMullin noted that the fuel tank bore signs of recent alteration, a common method of transporting illegal narcotics. The Johnsons agreed to accompany McMullin to Highway Patrol headquarters one mile away, where the fuel tank could be carefully inspected. Police then found a secret compartment in the fuel tank containing over six kilograms of cocaine and a small amount of marijuana.
The district court 1 denied Johnson's pretrial motion to suppress, finding that McMullin stopped Johnson's vehicle because of an apparent traffic violation, that McMullin had a reasonable basis for the minimal questioning he conducted during the traffic stop, and that McMullin obtained valid consents from the Johnsons for the subsequent vehicle inspection and search.
On appeal, Johnson first argues that the purported traffic violation was a pretext for stopping Johnson on account of his race, age, and apparent affluence. We have recently clarified that "[a]ny traffic violation, however minor, provides probable cause for a traffic stop." United States v. Bloomfield, 40 F.3d 910, 915 (8th Cir.1994) (en banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1970, 131 L.Ed.2d 859 (1995). The district court credited Corporal McMullin's testimony that he stopped Johnson's car because it was following another vehicle too closely at high speed. Johnson's assertion that this finding is clearly erroneous is without merit. See United States v. Stapleton, 10 F.3d 582, 584 (8th Cir.1993); United States v. Cummins, 920 F.2d 498, 500-01 (8th Cir.1990).
Relying primarily on the initial panel opinion in United States v. Ramos, 20 F.3d 348 (8th Cir.1994), Johnson next argues (i) that the traffic stop became an unconstitutional detention when Corporal McMullin continued questioning Mrs. Johnson after checking her driver's license,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. Menard
...Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977); United States v. Hamby, 59 F.3d 99, 101 (8th Cir.1995); United States v. Johnson, 58 F.3d 356, 357 (8th Cir.1995); Halls, 40 F.3d at 276; United States v. Bloomfield, 40 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 1994); Cummins, 920 F.2d at 500; United Stat......
-
U.S. v. Beck
...v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977); United States v. Hamby, 59 F.3d 99, 101 (8th Cir. 1995); United States v. Johnson, 58 F.3d 356, 357 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 936, 116 S.Ct. 348, 133 L.Ed.2d 245 (1995); United States v. Halls, 40 F.3d 275, 276 (8th Cir.1......
-
US v. Morris
...unrelated to the traffic offense, an officer may broaden the officer's inquiry and satisfy those suspicions." United States v. Johnson, 58 F.3d 356, 357-58 (8th Cir.1995); Ramos, 42 F.3d at 1163 (inconsistent answers by occupants or problems with the occupants' licenses or registration of t......
-
U.S. v. Marasco
...A consensual search does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the consent was voluntarily given without coercion. United States v. Johnson, 58 F.3d 356, 357-58 (8th Cir.1995). Furthermore, the government must establish the voluntariness of the consent by the preponderance of the evidence. Un......
-
Table of Cases
...United States v., 410 F.3d 137 (4th Cir. 2005) 4 Johnson, United States v., 427 F.3d 1053 (7th Cir. 2005) 11 Johnson, United States v., 58 F.3d 356 (8th Cir. 1995) 40 Jolivet v. Cook, 48 F.3d 1232 (10th Cir. 1995) 97 Jones v. State, 723 P.2d 984 (Okla. App. 1986) 60 Jones v. United States, ......
-
Chapter 2. Traffic Detentions
...696 N.W.2d 636 (Mich. 2005). The officer may also ask the passengers about their intended travel plans. United States v. Johnson, 58 F.3d 356 (8th Cir. 1995). Asking about drugs and alcohol Questions about drugs and alcohol that delay the traffic detention must be premised on reasonable sus......
-
Your Papers, Please: Police Authority to Request Identification from a Passenger During a Traffic Stop in Alaska
...her destination and purpose. An officer may engage in similar routine questioning of the vehicle's passengers." (citing U.S. v. Johnson, 58 F.3d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1995))); St. George v. State, 197 S.W.3d 806, 819, 822-23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) ("merely asking for a passenger's identity or ......