United States v. Gholston, 20-2168

• Decision Date: 14 June 2021
• Docket Number: No. 20-2168,20-2168
• Citation: 1 F.4th 492
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jacques S. GHOLSTON, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

1 F.4th 492

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Jacques S. GHOLSTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-2168

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued November 30, 2020

Decided June 14, 2021

Rehearing Denied July 29, 2021

Matthew Weir, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Springfield, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Thomas W. Patton, Attorney, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before Easterbrook, Wood, and Hamilton, Circuit Judges.

Wood, Circuit Judge.

Officer Erik Cowick pulled over Jacques Gholston just after midnight on April 29, 2018, for turning without signaling. Because Cowick suspected that Gholston was a drug dealer, he called for a trained dog to perform a drug sniff at the scene. As Cowick was finishing the routine procedures required for a minor traffic violation, the dog arrived and alerted officers to the presence of methamphetamine.

The discovery of the drugs led in time to federal charges for possession of five or more grams of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). In response, Gholston filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence of the meth seized as a result of the dog sniff. He contended that Cowick unreasonably delayed the stop in order to allow the "K9" officer to arrive and perform an inspection. The district court denied the motion. Gholston then pleaded guilty, reserving his right to challenge the ruling on the motion to suppress. We conclude that the district court committed no reversible error in finding that Cowick did not unlawfully prolong the stop and thus did not violate Gholston's Fourth Amendment rights. We therefore affirm.

I

Officer Cowick had long suspected that Gholston was distributing large quantities of methamphetamine from his truck. Cowick had an informant, Taylour Toolate, who occasionally provided information about criminal activity in Quincy, Illinois. On one occasion at an unspecified time, Toolate informed Cowick that she believed that Gholston was about to pick up and deliver large quantities of methamphetamine using his green pickup truck, which had a toolbox in the bed. She predicted that Gholston would store the methamphetamine in a magnetic box affixed to the bottom of the truck. Cowick also vaguely said that other people he had arrested in the past told him that Gholston sold methamphetamine from his truck. Cowick could not identify any of them by name, nor could he provide any details or documentation about those supposed encounters.

In the early morning hours of April 29, 2018, Cowick was patrolling a high crime area in Quincy. He spotted Gholston's green pickup truck with the toolbox in its bed. Evidently Cowick had kept Toolate's tip in mind for some time, as she had been incarcerated since January 10, 2018. He decided to follow Gholston to see if he could stop him for a traffic infraction.

An opportunity presented itself when, around 12:16 am, Gholston turned right from 5th Street onto Chestnut Street without using a turn signal. Cowick caught up to Gholston's truck, activating his emergency lights at 12:17 am as he made the same turn onto Chestnut Street. By the time Cowick finished turning, Gholston had already parked the truck and was walking away. This further heightened Cowick's suspicions, as he believes that "walk[ing] away from a traffic stop in this area" usually means drugs are involved. Cowick radioed to dispatch that he was preparing to make a stop. He then called out for Gholston to stop, but Gholston kept walking. This, too, disturbed Cowick, because he thought that the two had made eye contact. Cowick decided to follow Gholston on foot, calling after Gholston until he responded and returned to the car. Gholston explained that he did not hear Cowick calling him at first. He added that Cowick did not turn on his lights until after Gholston was already out of the car, and so he did not realize that Cowick was after him. Cowick handcuffed Gholston at 12:18 am and sat him on the curb. Around that time, Officers Hodges and Cirrincione arrived at the scene.

Cowick began the standard procedure for writing a ticket, but there were a few delays along the way. When asked for his license, Gholston explained that his ID was in his truck. Cowick, unprovoked, asked if there was a reason Gholston did not want Cowick to retrieve the ID from the vehicle, to which Gholston responded "huh." That was the most that Gholston said; he never stated in so many words that he did not want Cowick to retrieve the ID from the car. Instead, Gholston verbally conveyed his ID information to Cowick. Cowick also conducted an additional consensual search of Gholston's person; it did not turn up anything. He then returned to his squad car and radioed dispatch to confirm whether Gholston had a valid driver's license. Dispatch informed Cowick that Gholston's ID was valid but that he also had a Notice of Violation ("Notice") on file for improperly parking over a year earlier.

At that point Cowick contacted two more officers to assist him with the stop. First, at 12:24:23 am, he looked up the location of a K9 officer, Deputy Saalborn (known as "sam12"), who was six to seven miles away from the stop. Next, he called for assistance in retrieving the Notice from the police station and delivering it to the traffic stop. Sargent Elbus radioed back that he could pick up the Notice. Cowick immediately responded at 12:26:43 am, using the car's messaging terminal, inviting Elbus to "take your time!!" because he was "trying to get sam12 here." Cowick was also communicating with Officer Cirrincione about getting Saalborn to the scene. At 12:28:03 am, Cirrincione messaged Cowick through his car terminal saying that Saalborn was on the way.

Throughout the time he was completing the ticket, Cowick continued to urge Elbus to take his time, sending him messages at 12:29:15 am and 12:29:20 am to that effect. He did the opposite with Saalborn, urging him at 12:30:31 am to "drive fast" because he could guarantee that Gholston had drugs in his car. Cowick printed Gholston's warning ticket for failing to use his turn signal at 12:32:27 am, 14 minutes after he had handcuffed Gholston.

As Cowick returned to Gholston to hand him the printed ticket, he realized that he had not yet asked Gholston for his insurance information. Gholston explained that his girlfriend had the truck insured but that he did not have proof of insurance on him. Cowick went back to his car to write a ticket for that infraction. As Cowick was finishing the second ticket, Saalborn arrived and walked the drug-sniffing dog around Gholston's truck. The dog alerted as the ticket was still printing. The officers searched the truck and discovered 9 grams of methamphetamine.

The government brought charges against Gholston, and as we noted, he moved to suppress the drugs on the ground that Cowick unreasonably extended the stop in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court referred the motion to suppress to a magistrate judge, who held that Cowick did extend the stop beyond the time reasonably required so that Saalborn could arrive and search for the methamphetamine. Nevertheless, the magistrate judge found that the stop did not raise constitutional concerns because Cowick had reasonable suspicion to continue holding Gholston based on Toolate's tip. For the most part, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings of fact, but it disagreed with her in one key respect, finding that Cowick did not unreasonably extend the stop. Cowick's delays, it thought, were minor, and his failure to request Gholston's insurance information at the start of the stop was a good-faith blunder.

II

In cases involving an appeal of a denial of a motion to suppress, a mixed standard of review applies: We review the district court's factual findings for clear error, and we evaluate legal conclusions and mixed questions of law and fact de novo . United States v. Williams , 731 F.3d 678, 683 (7th Cir. 2013).

Whether a lawful stop extends so long that it raises constitutional concerns turns on reasonableness. As relevant for our purposes, a seizure made in order to issue a warning ticket to a driver "can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission." Illinois v. Caballes , 543 U.S. 405, 407, 125 S.Ct. 834, 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (2005) ; Rodriguez v. United States , 575 U.S. 348, 357, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015). The goal is to complete such a stop in a reasonable time. Side-inquiries into other potential crimes such as drug-related activity represent a "detour[ ] from [the original] mission." Rodriguez , 575 U.S. at 356, 135 S.Ct. 1609.

While officers must act diligently, we repeatedly have declined to adopt even a rule of thumb that relies on the number of minutes any given stop lasts. We explained recently in United States v. Lopez , 907 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 2018), that we ask whether the defendant was detained longer than necessary for the underlying investigation, not "exactly how many minutes the stop lasts." Id . at 486. A stop may call for a variety of measures beyond printing the ticket, including "checking the driver's license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile's registration and proof of insurance." Rodriguez , 575 U.S. at 355, 135 S.Ct. 1609.

Guided by these principles, the district court found that Officer Cowick did not unreasonably extend Gholston's stop. It noted that most of the alleged delays were attributable to reasonable mistakes or forces outside of Cowick's control. For example, it found as a fact that Gholston's failure to provide Cowick with his ID increased the amount of time needed for the stop. Cowick had to enter Gholston's information manually rather than filling all fields with a quick scan of a barcode. The district court further determined that Cowick made an "innocent mistake" when ...