United States v. Buzzard

• Decision Date: 11 June 2021
• Docket Number: No. 20-4221,No. 20-4087, No. 20-4228,20-4087
• Citation: 1 F.4th 198
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Jason Wattie BUZZARD, Defendant – Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Paul William Martin, Defendant – Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Paul Martin, Defendant – Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

1 F.4th 198

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.Jason Wattie BUZZARD, Defendant – Appellant.

United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.Paul William Martin, Defendant – Appellant.

United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.Paul Martin, Defendant – Appellant.

No. 20-4087

No. 20-4221

No. 20-4228

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: January 28, 2021

Decided: June 11, 2021

ARGUED: David Robert Bungard, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. Louie Alexander Hamner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Gerald Morton Titus, III, SPILMAN, THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC, for Appellant Jason Wattie Buzzard. Wesley P. Page, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant Paul William Martin. Michael B. Stuart, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Diaz wrote the opinion, in which Judge Motz and Judge Richardson joined.

DIAZ, Circuit Judge:

In this consolidated appeal, Jason Wattie Buzzard and Paul William Martin challenge the district court's denial of their motions to suppress evidence found when police searched a car they occupied. Martin also challenges the denial of his motion for acquittal at trial and the revocation of his term of supervised release at sentencing. For the following reasons, we affirm.

I.

A.

Shortly after 1:30am on October 12, 2018, West Virginia police officer Tyler Dawson pulled over a car for a defective brake light.¹ Buzzard was driving and Martin was in the passenger seat of the car, which had recently left the parking lot of a Sheetz gas station and convenience store. Dawson, who was patrolling alone that night, called into dispatch that he was stopping a vehicle with two occupants and gave his location. He then approached the vehicle and recognized Martin (he'd had prior interactions with Martin while on duty).

At some point during the stop, Dawson asked whether there was anything illegal in the car (the parties dispute when this occurred). In response, Buzzard and Martin both volunteered drug paraphernalia; Buzzard produced a marijuana "bowl" from under his shirt and Martin produced a hypodermic needle and syringe.

Additional officers arrived on the scene and Buzzard and Martin were removed from the vehicle. The officers searched the car and recovered two handguns wrapped in socks—one from under the driver's seat and one from under the passenger's seat. They arrested Buzzard and Martin, who were each charged with being a felon in possession of firearms.²

B.

Martin and Buzzard filed nearly identical motions to suppress the guns, together with additional evidence found in the vehicle. They claimed that Officer Dawson violated their Fourth Amendment rights by asking whether there was anything illegal in the car because the question wasn't related to the traffic stop's mission and unlawfully prolonged the stop. After a joint evidentiary hearing, the district court denied both motions.

C.

Buzzard pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms. His plea agreement preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.

Martin went to trial on a second superseding indictment that charged him with being, and conspiring to be, a felon in possession of firearms. At the close of the government's case, Martin moved for a judgment of acquittal on both counts. The district court granted the motion with respect to the conspiracy charge but denied it with respect to the possession charge. The jury found Martin guilty of being a felon in possession of firearms. During sentencing, the district court granted the petition to revoke Martin's previous term of supervised release.

This appeal followed.

II.

Buzzard and Martin maintain that the district court should have suppressed the guns because Officer Dawson violated their Fourth Amendment rights when he asked whether there was anything illegal in the car. When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we review factual findings for clear error and legal determinations de novo. United States v. Scott , 941 F.3d 677, 683 (4th Cir. 2019). When, as here, the government prevailed below, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Jamison , 509 F.3d 623, 628 (4th Cir. 2007).

A.

The evidence before the district court included Dawson's, Buzzard's, and Martin's testimony at the suppression hearing. Dawson testified as follows. The traffic stop occurred in a high-crime area, where officers, including Dawson himself, had previously made multiple arrests for narcotics. There's a known drug house within a block of the location, and people often use the free Wi-Fi at the Sheetz to arrange drug deals.

Dawson made the call to dispatch as soon as he pulled the car over. On his overnight shift, it's common practice that when a lone officer calls in that he's stopping a vehicle with more than one occupant, another officer will join him as soon as possible. That night, the first additional officer arrived within three to five minutes.

After making the call, Dawson walked to the driver's side window and spoke with Buzzard. At this point in a traffic stop, Dawson "[a]lways advise[s] [the occupants] why [he] stopped them and then [ ] always ask[s] for license[,] [ ] registration, [and] proof of insurance." J.A. 150. In response to this request, Buzzard began looking for the registration and insurance and explained that it wasn't his car. Dawson then recognized Martin in the passenger's seat. He knew that Martin had a history of drug addiction, that he'd recently gotten out of prison, and that he was a convicted felon.

As Dawson spoke with Buzzard, Martin kept moving and looking around. Martin "would not sit still in the seat and [ ] wasn't making eye contact with" Dawson. J.A. 153. Martin also interrupted Dawson repeatedly as he spoke with Buzzard, saying things like "hey, you know, we're not up to anything. It's just me." Id. Martin's behavior was abnormal for a passenger during a traffic stop, and Dawson suspected that he might run.

Because it was late at night and there were two individuals in the car—one of whom he thought might run—Dawson decided to wait for another officer to arrive before returning to his vehicle to check what information he could (Buzzard hadn't been able to provide a driver's license, registration, or insurance). While waiting for an additional officer to arrive, Dawson asked Buzzard if there was anything illegal in the vehicle. He asked this question because of "the time of night and the high drug area, Mr. Martin's history and Mr. Martin's behavior." J.A. 158. In response, Buzzard volunteered the marijuana bowl. Dawson had Buzzard step out of the vehicle and performed a pat search for weapons. During this time, "Martin was bent over. He seemed to be fiddling around near the floorboard of the car." J.A. 160.

As Dawson finished his pat search of Buzzard, Officer Tony Messer arrived. Dawson passed Buzzard off to Messer and moved to Martin's side of the car. That's when Martin produced a hypodermic needle and syringe to Dawson. After Dawson asked Martin to step out of the vehicle and began to perform a pat search on him, Messer told Dawson to cuff Martin because there were guns in the car (after Dawson passed Buzzard off to Messer, Buzzard told Messer that Martin had guns in the car). The police ultimately searched the car and found the two handguns wrapped in socks under the driver's and passenger's seats.

Martin told a different story. He testified that Dawson never introduced himself, mentioned the reason for the stop, or asked Buzzard for his license and registration. Rather, Martin testified, Dawson simply walked up to Buzzard's window and asked, "Is there anything illegal in the car?" J.A. 181–82. Martin further testified that he later heard Dawson tell Buzzard that he pulled them over because he'd seen Martin get in the car at Sheetz.³

Buzzard, who was sequestered during Martin's testimony, similarly testified that Dawson simply walked up to his window and asked whether he had anything illegal in the car. He denied that Dawson introduced himself, told Buzzard the reason he'd stopped the car, or asked for Buzzard's license and registration. Buzzard also testified that he'd later heard Dawson tell Messer that Dawson had "seen Mr. Martin in the car and knew he was up to something." J.A. 187. On cross, the government asked whether Buzzard had talked with Martin about the case while in prison and, when Buzzard answered no, impeached him with a recorded jail call in which Buzzard and Martin spoke about the case with a woman Buzzard was dating at the time.⁴

B.

Buzzard and Martin argue that Dawson's question violated their Fourth Amendment rights because (1) it wasn't related to the traffic stop's mission, and (2) it unlawfully prolonged the stop. We take each argument in turn.

1.

Buzzard and Martin contend that, by asking whether there was anything illegal in the vehicle, Dawson "transformed a legitimate traffic stop into an investigation to see if Buzzard and Martin were engaged in any criminal conduct." Appellant's Br. at 14. Because the question was "directed toward general law enforcement goals, not the basis for the traffic stop or concerns for officer safety," they argue, "[t]he investigation unduly extended the traffic stop without Dawson having reasonable suspicion to do so." Id. at 14–15. The district court rejected this argument, reasoning that the question was related to the stop's mission because it relates to both officer and highway safety.

Buzzard and Martin rely primarily on Rodriguez v. United States , 575 U.S. 348, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015). There, a K-9 officer pulled over a vehicle that had slowly...