United States v. Hill

• Decision Date: 30 March 2017
• Docket Number: No. 15-4639,15-4639
• Citation: 852 F.3d 377
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald T. HILL, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

852 F.3d 377

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Donald T. HILL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-4639

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: January 25, 2017

Decided: March 30, 2017

ARGUED: Caroline Swift Platt, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen Eugene Anthony, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Robert J. Wagner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Keenan wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge Duncan joined. Senior Judge Davis wrote a dissenting opinion.

BARBARA MILANO KEENAN, Circuit Judge:

Donald Hill pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He appeals from the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence of statements he made during a traffic stop and of a firearm that was seized during the stop. Hill argues that the police officers' actions exceeded the lawful scope of the stop, and that the stop was prolonged unjustifiably beyond the time needed to execute the relevant tasks, violating his Fourth Amendment rights described in Rodriguez v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015).

Upon our review, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the suppression motion, because the traffic stop did not exceed the time reasonably required to complete the tasks incident to the mission of the stop. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment.

I.

On October 20, 2014, Richmond City police officers Ryan Taylor and Jason McClendon were patrolling a neighborhood in Richmond in their police cruiser.¹ The officers saw a vehicle (the car) travelling at an estimated speed slightly exceeding the posted speed limit, and observed the car cross a yellow, double-solid line marker in the center of the roadway. After Officer Taylor activated the cruiser's emergency lights and siren, the car turned into a driveway of a residence. The officers parked their cruiser at the end of the driveway behind the car, and initiated a traffic stop about 6:01 p.m.

The driver of the car, Jeremy Taylor (the driver), immediately stepped out of the car. The officers thought that the driver might be attempting to abscond from the scene,² but the driver complied when ordered by Officer McClendon to return to the car.

As the officers approached the car, Officer Taylor recognized both occupants of the vehicle. Officer Taylor testified that he knew the driver as someone who had been "hanging with" individuals "connected with" robberies. Officer Taylor also recognized Hill, the passenger in the vehicle, from a prior traffic stop, and was aware that Hill had been a victim in a prior stabbing incident.

At Officer Taylor's request, the driver produced identification but Hill was unable to do so. Officer Taylor returned to the police cruiser, and entered the names of both the driver and Hill into computer databases operated by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). Officer Taylor took this action to confirm the men's identities, to ascertain whether there were any warrants outstanding for their arrest, and to determine whether the driver had a valid operator's license.

After about three minutes had passed, the NCIC database returned an "alert" notifying Officer Taylor that both men had been associated with drug trafficking and were "likely armed." Officer Taylor also learned that the driver had a suspended operator's license. Accordingly, about 6:04 p.m., Officer Taylor began writing two summonses for the driver, one for reckless driving and one for driving with a suspended operator's license. Officer Taylor also requested that a K-9 unit be sent to the scene.

Officer Taylor interrupted writing the summonses in order to enter the men's names into an additional computer database known as PISTOL, which tracks every person who has had prior contacts with the police in Richmond.³ Officer Taylor testified that using PISTOL can be a lengthy process because after an officer enters an individual's name into the system, PISTOL produces a list of all individuals with the same name. In this case, after PISTOL produced a list of eight or nine individuals with the same name as the driver, Officer Taylor spent between three and five minutes reviewing that information. Once Officer Taylor had located both the driver and Hill in the PISTOL system, Officer Taylor resumed writing the two summonses. Both officers testified that it typically takes about four or five minutes to write a single summons.

While Officer Taylor searched the databases and continued to write the summonses in the police cruiser, Officer McClendon remained standing next to the passenger side of the car "[m]aking small talk" with the driver and Hill. During their conversation, Officer McClendon asked the men a total of three times whether there were any drugs or firearms in the car. Following the third inquiry, Hill responded that he had a firearm on his person. Officer McClendon immediately shouted "gun," prompting Officer Taylor to return to the car to assist in securing Hill and recovering the firearm.

Meanwhile, the K-9 unit had arrived at the scene. However, at the time Officer McClendon yelled "gun," the K-9 unit dog was still in the unit's vehicle and had not begun its anticipated "sniff" of the area around the car. The district court found that a total of about 20 minutes had elapsed from the time the officers initiated the stop to the moment that Officer McClendon shouted "gun."

Hill was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He filed a motion to suppress both the firearm and the statements he made during the traffic stop. After a suppression hearing, the district court found that the officers had testified credibly, and accepted as true the officers' description of the events. The court also found that the stop was not extended for any reason, including Officer Taylor's request for a K-9 unit. The court accordingly concluded that the officers had acted lawfully, and denied Hill's motion to suppress.

Hill later entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to challenge on appeal the denial of his suppression motion. Hill now appeals from the district court's denial of that motion.

II.

Hill argues that Officers Taylor and McClendon unlawfully extended the duration and scope of the traffic stop, in violation of Hill's rights under the Fourth Amendment. In particular, Hill challenges Officer McClendon's decision to talk with him and the driver, rather than to assist Officer Taylor with searching the databases and writing the summonses. Hill also challenges Officer Taylor's decisions to request a K-9 unit and to search the PISTOL database. Hill asserts that as a cumulative effect of these decisions, the officers improperly extended the stop beyond the time necessary to complete the purpose of the stop in violation of the Supreme Court's decision in Rodriguez , –––U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1609. We disagree with Hill's arguments.

A.

When a district court has denied a motion to suppress, we review the court's legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. White , 836 F.3d 437, 440 (4th Cir. 2016). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the prevailing party in the district court. United States v. Williams , 808 F.3d 238, 245 (4th Cir. 2015).

A traffic stop constitutes a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment and is subject to review for reasonableness. Id. To satisfy the reasonableness requirements for an investigative detention, a traffic stop must be legitimate at its inception, and the officers' actions during the stop must be "reasonably related in scope" to the basis for the stop. Id. (citation omitted); see generally Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Because Hill does not argue that the traffic stop was unjustified at its inception, our analysis is limited to the second question, namely, whether the "manner of execution [of the stop] unreasonably infringe[d]" on Hill's rights under the Fourth Amendment. Illinois v. Caballes , 543 U.S. 405, 407, 125 S.Ct. 834, 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (2005).

If a traffic stop is extended in time beyond the period that the officers are completing tasks related to the traffic infractions, the officers must either obtain consent from the individuals detained or identify reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to support the extension of the stop. Williams , 808 F.3d at 245-46. The "[a]uthority for the seizure ... ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed." Rodriguez , 135 S.Ct. at 1614. The Supreme Court recently has clarified that extending a stop by even a de minimis length of time violates the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 1615-16 ; see also Williams , 808 F.3d at 246-47.

The "acceptable length of a routine traffic stop," however, "cannot be stated with mathematical precision." United States v. Digiovanni , 650 F.3d 498, 511 (4th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted), abrogated in part on other grounds by Rodriguez , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 191 L.Ed.2d 492. In evaluating the reasonableness of a stop, we consider "what the police in fact do," and whether the officers acted reasonably under the totality of the circumstances presented to them. Rodriguez , 135 S.Ct. at 1616 ; Digiovanni , 650 F.3d at 509. Thus, an officer need not employ "the least intrusive means conceivable" in executing a stop, but he still must be reasonably diligent and must use "the least...