U.S. v. Meyers, 92-3001

Decision Date13 April 1993
Docket NumberNo. 92-3001,92-3001
Citation990 F.2d 1083
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glen Edward MEYERS, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Asa Hutchinson, Fort Smith, AR, argued, for defendant-appellant.

Steven N. Snyder, Fort Smith, AR, argued (J. Michael Fitzhugh and David R. Ferguson on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

Glen Edward Meyers appeals his conviction for conspiracy to manufacture marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1988). He argues that the district court 1 erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained in execution of the search warrant because part of the basis for issuing the warrant was an allegedly illegal traffic stop. He also argues that at sentencing the district court erred in denying his motion to reduce the base offense level, in denying his objection to a two-level increase for possession of a firearm during commission of the offense, and in failing to give a reduction for minimal participation. We affirm the conviction and the sentence.

Arkansas state police officers began an investigation after receiving a tip from informant Ron Meyers that his nephew from Florida, Glen Meyers, was growing marijuana on Ron Meyers' land in Logan County, Arkansas. On July 31, 1991, officers flew over the property and confirmed that marijuana was growing there. Later that day, officers went in on foot and found approximately thirty marijuana plants, some of them obviously cultivated. Officers returned the next day and observed Ron Meyers, Glen Meyers, and John Cash, coming out of the house on the property. At some point in the afternoon, Glen Meyers left the property in a white mid-sized car.

Later that afternoon, Trooper Bryan Davis, a state police officer on routine traffic patrol in the area, received a radio call from Lieutenant Dale Best, one of the narcotics investigators involved in the surveillance. Lieutenant Best asked Davis "[i]f [he] had reason to stop the vehicle ... and ID the driver ... if possible." Best described the vehicle as "a white Chrysler product, probably dirty, with Florida tags." Shortly thereafter, Davis spotted a car fitting this description following closely behind another vehicle. Determining that the car was following too closely and was thus in violation of state law, Davis stopped the car. The driver produced a valid Florida license identifying him as Glen Meyers. Davis issued Meyers a warning ticket which Meyers signed. Davis did not question Meyers further and allowed him to go on his way. Davis later reported the information obtained in the stop to Lieutenant Best.

As surveillance continued at the Meyers property, the officers observed Glen Meyers return and unload five-gallon water cans from his car. The next day they observed Glen Meyers filling the water cans from a hose. Surveillance continued on August 20 and September 6. Officers observed Glen Meyers examining a marijuana plant on the property and driving a vehicle which they later confirmed had been reported stolen in Florida.

The officers then obtained the search warrant which they executed on September 7. The search revealed seventy-nine marijuana plants, processed marijuana, and various firearms. In one bedroom of the house, officers discovered the warning ticket Trooper Davis had issued, plastic bags, a digital scale, and marijuana spread out to dry on the floor. Under the mattress in that room, they found Glen Meyers' wallet, which contained $4,300 cash. Just inside the bedroom door, they found a fully-loaded TEC-9 9mm semiautomatic pistol. 2

The grand jury charged Glen Meyers with one count of conspiracy to manufacture marijuana, and one count of using a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (Supp. III 1991). A magistrate judge held a hearing and recommended dismissal of Meyers' motion to suppress the evidence obtained with the search warrant. The district court adopted the recommendation, and a jury convicted Meyers of the conspiracy charge, but acquitted him of the firearms charge. The court sentenced him to thirty-three months imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release.

I.

Meyers first argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained in the search. He argues that the traffic stop was pretextual and, therefore, illegal under Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 663, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1401, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979). He argues that the information obtained during the traffic stop "confirmed" the informant's statement that the individual growing the marijuana was from Florida, and that the reliability of this informant was "critical" to the magistrate's determination of probable cause. This argument is unpersuasive.

Our cases direct us to hold that the traffic stop was not pretextual. Meyers does not dispute that he violated state law by following the vehicle ahead of him too closely. Rather, he argues that the real reason Trooper Davis stopped him for this minor violation was the radio call from Lieutenant Best. Trooper Davis's underlying intent or motivation, however, is irrelevant. See United States v. Maejia, 928 F.2d 810, 814-15 (8th Cir.1991). We review allegedly pretextual traffic stops under an "objective reasonableness" standard and an otherwise valid traffic stop does not become unreasonable merely because the officer knows the vehicle has been under surveillance for some other reason. Id. We have held that whenever "an officer observes a traffic offense--however minor--he has probable cause to stop the driver of the vehicle," and the stop "remains valid even if the officer would have ignored the traffic violation but for his other suspicions." United States v. Cummins, 920 F.2d 498,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Brown
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • June 28, 2019
    ..., 19 F.3d 777, 782–84 (2d Cir. 1994) ; United States v. Ferguson , 8 F.3d 385, 391 (6th Cir. 1993) (en banc); United States v. Meyers , 990 F.2d 1083, 1085 (8th Cir. 1993) ; United States v. Causey , 834 F.2d 1179, 1184–85 (5th Cir. 1987) (en banc).A number of these federal circuit court ca......
  • U.S. v. Roach, s. 93-3177
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • July 5, 1994
    ...held that acquittal on a weapons charge does not preclude a sentencing enhancement for the acquitted conduct. United States v. Meyers, 990 F.2d 1083, 1086 (8th Cir.1993); United States v. England, 966 F.2d 403, 409-10 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 668, 121 L.Ed.2d 592 (......
  • Taylor v. State
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • October 4, 1995
    ...stop 'remains valid even if the officer would have ignored the traffic violation but for his other suspicions.' " United States v. Meyers, 990 F.2d 1083, 1085 (8th Cir.1993) (quoting United States v. Cummins, 920 F.2d 498, 500-01 (8th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 962, 112 S.Ct. 428, 11......
  • Alejandre v. State
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • October 4, 1995
    ...second test, labeled the "could" test, focuses on whether the officer was legally authorized to make the stop. See United States v. Meyers, 990 F.2d 1083, 1085 (8th Cir.1993). In applying the "could" test, "the stop 'remains valid even if the officer would have ignored the traffic violation......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • "Could" this be the end of Fourth Amendment protections for motorists?
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 87 No. 3, March 1997
    • March 22, 1997
    ...States v. Scopo, 19 F.3d 777, 782-84 (2d Cir. 1994); United States v. Jeffus, 22 F.3d 554, 557 (4th Cir. 1994); United States v. Myers, 990 F.2d 1083, 1085 (8th Cir. 1993); United States v. Mitchell, 951 F.2d 1291, 1295 (D.C. Cir. 1991); United States v. Trigg, 925 F.2d 1064, 1065 (7th Cir.......
  • Miller v. Arkansas: Criminals Beware! Arkansas Uses an Objective Approach in Evaluating Pretextual Traffic Stops - Jason Watson
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 46-4, June 1995
    • Invalid date
    ...Cir. 1989) (objective analysis of facts and circumstances, rather than subjective intent of officer involved); United States v. Meyers, 990 F.2d 1083 (8th Cir. 1993) (allegedly pretextual traffic stops should be reviewed under an objective reasonableness standard). 39. See, e.g., Hines v. S......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT