United States v. Pace

• Decision Date: 09 September 2022
• Docket Number: 21-2151
• Citation: 48 F.4th 741
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roger E. PACE, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

48 F.4th 741

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Roger E. PACE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-2151

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued December 6, 2021

Decided September 9, 2022

Jeffrey Kienstra, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Peoria, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Thomas Drysdale, Attorney, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Urbana, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before Ripple, Wood, and Kirsch, Circuit Judges.

Ripple, Circuit Judge.

During a search of Roger Pace's vehicle, a police officer discovered methamphetamine. Mr. Pace was subsequently charged with possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B).

Mr. Pace filed a motion to suppress the drugs and other evidence found during the search of his SUV. The magistrate judge conducted an evidentiary hearing and then recommended that the district court deny the motion. After considering Mr. Pace's objections to the magistrate judge's report, the district court overruled those objections, adopted the report, and denied the motion to suppress.

Mr. Pace subsequently pleaded guilty but reserved his right to appeal the ruling on his suppression motion. At his sentencing hearing, Mr. Pace asserted that he was eligible for relief from the five-year statutory minimum sentence pursuant to the "safety valve" provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). The district court determined, however, that Mr. Pace did not qualify for the safety valve and sentenced him to 60 months' imprisonment.

Mr. Pace now asks us to review both the district court's denial of his motion to suppress and its ruling that he did not qualify for the safety valve. We hold that the district court correctly determined that the search of Mr. Pace's vehicle was based on reasonable suspicion and that he did not qualify for the safety valve. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

IBACKGROUND

A.

On April 5, 2019, at around 10:30 p.m., Officer Ryan Crowder observed a white SUV in the parking lot of a local business. An individual was sitting inside the SUV. That night, Officer Crowder was the only police officer on duty in the small town of Pleasant Hill, Illinois. He testified that he pulled into the parking lot to investigate the SUV because it was nighttime, the business was closed, and he had never seen that particular SUV in Pleasant Hill. As soon as Officer Crowder pulled his car alongside the SUV, Mr. Pace exited his vehicle and started speaking with him. Mr. Pace explained that he was in town visiting his friend, Jennifer Johns, but was lost and needed directions to Carolina Street where Johns lived.

Officer Crowder knew of Johns and of her past methamphetamine use. Indeed, Johns previously had provided information to Officer Crowder about methamphetamine use in Pleasant Hill, and this information had led to the arrest of a person for possession of the drug. A member of the Western Central Illinois Task Force also had informed him that a confidential source reported that Johns and her mother were using and moving methamphetamine. Finally, Officer Crowder had received complaints from Johns's neighbors about frequent traffic at her home, which was consistent with drug trafficking. Officer Crowder testified that Mr. Pace's mention of Johns's name and of his planned late-night visit to her residence therefore raised a red flag.

After providing Mr. Pace with directions to Johns's home, Officer Crowder backed up his police car, activated his emergency lights, and parked directly behind Mr. Pace's SUV. At this point, less than one minute had elapsed from the time that Officer Crowder had initially stopped.¹ While Officer Crowder moved his squad car, Mr. Pace stood in front of his SUV and talked on his phone. The exit to the parking lot was in front of Mr. Pace's car; nothing obstructed his ability to drive away.

Officer Crowder then approached Mr. Pace again and asked for his driver's license. Shining his flashlight inside the SUV, he did not see any weapons or contraband but did see multiple musical instrument cases. Mr. Pace walked to the back of his SUV and attempted to get one of the instruments out to play for Officer Crowder but was asked to leave it in the vehicle. Mr. Pace's behavior struck Officer Crowder as very odd and overly friendly, yet nervous at the same time. Officer Crowder attempted to radio Mr. Pace's driver's license into dispatch to confirm its validity and to ascertain whether Mr. Pace had any warrants. Discovering that his portable radio was not working, Officer Crowder returned to his squad car with Mr. Pace's license and waited for dispatch to respond. He also called an officer from another agency to determine whether he could assist, but the officer was busy.

Dispatch confirmed that Mr. Pace's license was clear and that he had no outstanding warrants. It further indicated, however, that he had a history of drug possession including methamphetamine, narcotic instruments, and drug paraphernalia. Officer Crowder also checked a website that provides a person's criminal history from several jurisdictions. According to the site, Mr. Pace was on probation for possession of methamphetamine.² After exiting his squad car, Officer Crowder inquired whether Mr. Pace had any weapons. Mr. Pace denied that he did and consented to a search of his person. Officer Crowder then asked if Mr. Pace would consent to a search of his SUV, but Mr. Pace declined.

At that point, Officer Crowder informed Mr. Pace that he was going to conduct a free air sniff of his SUV with his canine partner. Officer Crowder then explained to Mr. Pace that he was not under arrest, but that he was going to place him in restraints during the sniff for officer safety. He handcuffed Mr. Pace's hands in front of his body. Both Officer Crowder and Mr. Pace walked back to the SUV, and Mr. Pace retrieved an item from the front of the vehicle. Officer Crowder then placed him in front of his squad car. Officer Crowder retrieved his K-9 from the squad car. After the dog alerted to the presence of drugs in the SUV, Officer Crowder searched the SUV and found both methamphetamine and cannabis. Officer Crowder then arrested Mr. Pace and placed him inside the squad car.

B.

Following his indictment for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, Mr. Pace filed a motion to suppress, asserting that all evidence obtained from the seizure, search, and arrest should be suppressed. The magistrate judge conducted a hearing on the motion and determined that the initial interaction between Mr. Pace and Officer Crowder was consensual. The judge also concluded that Officer Crowder's use of his emergency lights did not constitute a seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, but, in any event, Officer Crowder had reasonable articulable suspicion at that point in time to conduct a limited investigative stop to check Mr. Pace's license. The magistrate judge also concluded that once Officer Crowder learned of Mr. Pace's criminal history, he had sufficient information to conduct a free air sniff of Mr. Pace's SUV. Finally, the magistrate judge rejected the argument that an arrest occurred when the officer handcuffed Mr. Pace. An arrest occurred only after the completion of the search of the vehicle and the discovery of the drugs.

Mr. Pace filed several objections to the magistrate judge's report. He objected to the magistrate judge's determination that his encounter with Officer Crowder was consensual, that Officer Crowder's testimony was credible, that the activation of the squad car's emergency lights did not constitute a seizure, that Officer Crowder had reasonable suspicion when he activated the emergency lights, and that he was not placed under arrest when he was handcuffed. He contended that the facts demonstrated Officer Crowder "relied on nothing more than the name ‘Jennifer Johns’ to detain Mr. Pace, and that [was] not sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion."³

These arguments did not persuade the district court. In a written opinion, the court overruled Mr. Pace's objections and adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The court held that Mr. Pace's initial encounter with Officer Crowder was consensual, that Officer Crowder had reasonable suspicion to conduct a limited investigatory stop to check Mr. Pace's license,⁴ and that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the squad car's emergency lights were activated appropriately as part of an investigatory stop.⁵ Finally, the district court held that Officer Crowder had not placed Mr. Pace under arrest by handcuffing him during the search of the SUV. Having made these determinations, the district court denied the motion to suppress.

Mr. Pace then pleaded guilty but reserved his right to appeal the district court's ruling on the suppression motion. The probation office prepared a Presentence Report and did not deem him eligible for safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).⁶ Mr. Pace maintained that he was eligible for the safety valve, was not subject to a mandatory minimum sentence, and was entitled to a two-level reduction in his offense level.⁷ Under Mr. Pace's interpretation of § 3553(f)(1), he was eligible for safety-valve relief because he did not have a prior 2-point violent offense, as required under § 3553(f)(1)(C). Noting a division between the circuits on the issue, Mr. Pace also contended that the rules of lenity and fair warning should apply.

At the sentencing hearing, the district court rejected Mr. Pace's interpretation of safety valve eligibility found in § 3553(f)(1). The district court had previously addressed and rejected arguments identical to Mr. Pace's in United States v. Howell , No. 20-CR-30075-1, 2021 WL 2000245 (C.D. Ill. May 19, 2021). Relying on that opinion, the district court concluded that Mr. Pace's proposed interpretation gave rise to absurd results. The court...