United States v. Nault
| Decision Date | 21 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-30231 |
| Citation | 41 F.4th 1073 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shane Alan NAULT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Elizabeth T. Musick (argued), Musick & Tierney Law PLLC, Bozeman, Montana, for Defendant-Appellant.
Jeffrey K. Starnes (argued), Assistant United States Attorney; Leif M. Johnson, Acting United States Attorney; United States Attorney's Office, Great Falls, Montana; for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before: A. Wallace Tashima, Milan D. Smith, Jr., and Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Nguyen ;
Shane Nault appeals his conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Nault pled guilty but reserved the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motions to suppress and traverse the search warrant that resulted in the discovery of methamphetamine and a firearm in his vehicle. Because the district court properly denied both motions, we affirm.
On March 30, 2018, Officer Jordan Chroniger of the Havre Police Department was informed by a drug task force that a vehicle of interest to law enforcement was in the parking lot of the High Land Park Zip Trip gas station in Havre, Montana. Officer Chroniger was told that the vehicle was frequently driven by Nault and a woman named Joei Ross. The vehicle was a red GMC truck registered to Ross. Ross had an outstanding arrest warrant for failure to appear.
As Officer Chroniger's police car entered the parking lot, Ross's truck was idling and a figure was visible in the driver's seat. Officer Chroniger pulled his car directly behind the truck and another police car boxed the truck in from the other side. Officer Chroniger approached on foot, but he could not tell whether the person in the driver's seat was male or female because the windows were tinted.
After reaching the driver's side door, Officer Chroniger identified the driver as Nault. Officer Chroniger promptly informed Nault that the truck's plates were connected to a warrant for Ross and asked for her whereabouts. Nault responded that she was at the "Emporium," another gas station in town.
Around twenty seconds after initiating contact, Officer Chroniger asked for Nault's license, registration, and proof of insurance. Officer Chroniger described this document request as standard procedure when he encounters someone in control of a motor vehicle.1 Nault did not have his license, and he spent the next two minutes looking for the truck's registration and proof of insurance.
While Nault was looking for the documents, Officer Chroniger noticed that Nault was "fidgety," "making kind of sporadic movements," that "his pupils were constricted," and he was "sweating profusely" even though it was "a chilly day." To Officer Chroniger, these were signs that Nault was "under the influence of something." Just over a minute after initiating contact, Officer Chroniger asked Nault whether he had been drinking, was nervous, or had taken any illegal drugs.
Although Nault denied being under the influence, Officer Chroniger began to conduct a DUI investigation. Officer Chroniger testified that he patted Nault down for officer safety and discovered brass knuckles and a glass marijuana pipe. Officer Chroniger then administered a series of field sobriety tests, which showed signs of impairment. Officer Chroniger arrested Nault and took him into custody.
After learning of Nault's arrest, agents from the drug task force responded to the scene and arranged for a canine sniff around Nault's truck. The agent conducting the sniff reported that his canine, Nato, alerted to Nault's driver's side door.
An agent from the drug task force applied for a search warrant. The affidavit explained Officer Chroniger's encounter with Nault. It noted that the truck was registered to Ross, who had an outstanding warrant, but that Nault was driving the vehicle and was asked to produce his license, registration, and proof of insurance. It explained that Nault was arrested on a DUI charge, that a marijuana pipe was found on his person, and that a canine had alerted to the truck's driver's side door. The warrant also described a controlled buy operation a month earlier, on February 18, 2018, in which an informant purchased methamphetamine from Nault out of the same truck.
A judge issued the warrant, and task force officers searched the truck. Among other items, officers recovered a pistol and more than 500 grams of methamphetamine.
Nault was charged with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 ; possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) ; possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, 21 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A); and felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
Nault moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the vehicle stop and resulting canine sniff were unlawful and that the items found in Nault's vehicle were the fruit of the poisonous tree. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion to suppress on the ground that Officer Chroniger had a right to ask for Nault's license, registration, and proof of insurance even after learning that Nault was not the subject of the warrant associated with the truck. The district court concluded that, from that point on, law enforcement acted lawfully and the warrant was supported by probable cause.
Nault then moved to traverse the search warrant and requested a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware , 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). The district court denied the motion without a hearing.
Nault pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and felon in possession of a firearm. Nault reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motions to suppress and traverse. Nault was sentenced to concurrent terms of 180 months for the methamphetamine offense and 120 months for the firearm offense. Nault timely appealed.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Reviewing legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error, see United States v. Dixon , 984 F.3d 814, 818 (9th Cir. 2020), we hold that the district court properly denied Nault's motion to suppress.
"Like a Terry stop, the tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure's ‘mission’—to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop, and attend to related safety concerns." Rodriguez v. United States , 575 U.S. 348, 354, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015). "[A] police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution's shield against unreasonable seizures." Id. at 350, 135 S.Ct. 1609. Accordingly, an officer's inquiries during a traffic stop are constitutionally permissible if they are "(1) part of the stop's ‘mission’ or (2) supported by independent reasonable suspicion."
United States v. Landeros , 913 F.3d 862, 868 (9th Cir. 2019).
Nault argues Officer Chroniger unconstitutionally prolonged the vehicle stop when he asked for Nault to provide his license, registration, and proof of insurance because the suspicion that motivated the stop had evaporated once Officer Chroniger determined that Ross, the subject of the outstanding warrant, was not in the vehicle.
The government counters that the stop was supported by independent reasonable suspicion because Officer Chroniger began to suspect that Nault was intoxicated shortly after initiating contact. But the government's response does not account for the fact that around twenty seconds had elapsed between Officer Chroniger's first contact and his request for Nault's information, and Officer Chroniger did not observe signs of impairment until after he asked Nault for his documents.
We need not decide, and therefore assume for purposes of this opinion, that Officer Chroniger lacked reasonable suspicion that Nault was intoxicated until he first asked Nault whether he had been drinking, roughly a minute into the stop.2 Even if Officer Chroniger's request came before he developed independent suspicion, Officer Chroniger's continuation of the stop to request Nault's documents did not violate the Fourth Amendment because that request fell within the mission of the stop.
An officer conducting a vehicle stop has interests extending beyond that of "detecting evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing." Rodriguez , 575 U.S. at 355, 135 S.Ct. 1609 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). An officer's "mission" includes certain "ordinary inquiries incident to the traffic stop," even if they are not required to investigate a particular traffic violation. Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Those inquiries "[t]ypically ... involve checking the driver's license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile's registration and proof of insurance." Id. Such routine checks "ensur[e] that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly." Id. By contrast, unrelated inquiries such as dog sniffs or other non-routine checks, which are "aimed at ‘detect[ing] evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing,’ " lack the same "close connection to roadway safety," and must be justified by independent reasonable suspicion. Rodriguez , 575 U.S. at 355–56, 135 S.Ct. 1609 (quoting Indianapolis v. Edmond , 531 U.S. 32, 40–41, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000) ); see Landeros , 913 F.3d at 868 (); United States v. Evans , 786 F.3d 779, 786 (9th Cir. 2015) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Cantizano
... ... these two bases alone, Cantizano failed to make a ... "substantial preliminary showing that ... the affiant ... officer intentionally or recklessly made false or misleading ... statements or omissions in support of the warrant." ... United States v. Nault, 41 F.4th 1073, 1081 (9th ... Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) ... 7 ... Restitution Award. Cantizano contends that ... the district court clearly erred by awarding restitution to ... "Tara" because, in doing so, it relied ... ...