United States v. Rutledge
| Docket Number | 3:20-CR-30144-RAL |
| Decision Date | 30 November 2021 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JAMES RUTLEDGE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota |
Defendant James Rutledge was stopped by police officers while driving in rural South Dakota early one summer morning. A search of his vehicle turned up methamphetamine, marijuana, and a handgun. Rutledge's chief argument is that the evidence seized from his vehicle must be suppressed because the officers lacked probable cause for the traffic stop. This Court denies Rutledge's motion to suppress because the traffic stop complied with the Fourth Amendment.
Officers with the Northern Plains Safe Trails Drug Enforcement Task Force (Task Force) received information about Rutledge in the Summer of2020 when investigating methamphetamine distribution in central South Dakota, T. 13-14, 57-58, 88, 104-05, 112-21. Intelligence from an informant and a local drug dealer's phone made officers suspect that Rutledge was using rental vehicles to transport methamphetamine from Colorado to Winner, South Dakota. T. 14-15, 120- 21, 133; see also Def.'s Ex. G. Alexa D'Acunto, an agent with the South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation, obtained a pen register trap and trace warrant for phone numbers associated with Rutledge. T. 105; Def.'s Ex. G. Among other things, the warrant enabled officers to track the location of the cellular device assigned to Rutledge's phone number. T. 105-08; Def s Ex. G at 12-15, 19-23; Def.'s Ex. A.
On August 26, 2020, Rutledge's number was transferred from a phone in South Dakota to a phone in central Colorado. T. 107, 121-22; Def.'s Ex. A. Data from the phone in Colorado showed that Rutledge's number continued to communicate with a suspected drug dealer in the Winner area. T. 122-23. On the evening of August 27, 2020, the phone in Colorado began traveling towards South Dakota. T. 107, 123; Def.'s Ex. A. Agent D'Acunto and other Task Force officers, including Trooper Dylan Dowling and Sergeant John Lord with the South Dakota Highway Patrol, planned an interdiction stop of the vehicle carrying the phone. T. 15, 57-59, 10708. Not knowing who was driving the vehicle or what the vehicle looked like, Agent D'Acunto told the officers to stop the vehicle carrying the phone once they developed probable cause to do so. T. 108, 123-25; Def.'s Ex. A.
Cell location information showed that the vehicle was traveling north on U.S. Highway 183 towards Colome, South Dakota. T. 16, 59; Def.'s Ex. A. Trooper Dowling and BIA Agent Derek Parish waited in Colome in an unmarked police car parked near the intersection of U.S. Highways 183 and 18. T. 16-19; Gov.'s Ex. 3. Highway 18 intersects with Highway 183 at an angle, with Highway 183 running north-south and Highway 18 running southeast to northwest.[1]Gov.'s Ex. 3.[2] A vehicle traveling north on Highway 183 towards the intersection would encounter two stop signs, one on each side of the road. Gov.'s Ex. 3; T. 20-21. These stop signs are offset because of the angle at which Highway 18 intersects with Highway 183. Gov.'s Ex. 3; see also. T. 20-21. The signs are approximately 120 feet apart, and a vehicle driving north on Highway 183 towards the intersection would encounter the stop sign on the right side of the road first. Gov.'s Exs. 15-19; Doc. 50 at 2; see also T. 35. Trooper Dowling and Agent Parish could see both stop signs from their secluded position. T. 19-20, 24. However, the layout of the intersection and the presence of farm equipment and a grain elevator made it difficult to see whether a vehicle that reached the intersection went north on Highway 49 or northwest on Highway 183. T. 25, 39-40; Gov.'s Ex. 3.
At approximately 4:50 a.m. on August 28, Trooper Dowling saw a white van traveling north on Highway 183 towards the intersection. T, 23, 26, 34; Def.'s Exs. A, C. The van made a complete stop at the first stop sign, but rolled through the second stop sign. T. 24, 32, 37, 46, 48. Trooper Dowling informed Sergeant Lord and other Task Force members that the van failed to come to a complete stop at the stop sign and then headed west. T. 26, 40, 63, 82.
Sergeant Lord, who was driving south on Highway 49, passed a white van a few miles north of the intersection. T. 63-64. When another officer communicated shortly thereafter that he could not locate a vehicle west of the intersection, Sergeant Lord turned around and pulled the van over. T. 63-64. There were no other vehicles in the area.
Sergeant Lord approached the van, observed a red mini torch in the center console, and informed Rutledge, who was driving the van, that he had been stopped for failing to stop at a stop sign in Colome. Gov.'s Ex. 1A at 06:13-06:30; T. 67. Upon Sergeant Lord's request, Rutledge provided his driver's license, and the passenger produced the vehicle insurance and rental car agreement. T. 66. According to Sergeant Lord, Rutledge and the passenger appeared scared and nervous. T. 65. Rutledge exited the van and Sergeant Lord performed a quick pat down before he and Rutledge sat down in the patrol car. Gov.'s Ex. 1A at 07:15-07:33.
In the patrol car, Sergeant Lord began writing a warning ticket for Rutledge. Gov.'s Ex. IB. He asked Rutledge where he was coming from, and Rutledge replied, “It doesn't matter, just personal issues.” Gov.'s Ex. IB. at 07:55-08:02. Rutledge and Sergeant Lord talked briefly while Sergeant Lord worked on his computer. Gov.'s Ex. IB at 08:05-10:00. Sergeant Lord then said that more than one address came back for Rutledge's license, and Rutledge explained that he was “kind of transitory right now” but provided a Boulder, Colorado mailing address. Gov.'s Ex. IB at 10:00-10:50. Sergeant Lord updated Rutledge's address and continued to work on the ticket. T. 68-69, 96; Gov.'s Ex. IB at 10:50-13:40. In the meantime, another officer arrived with his drug dog.
Just under ten minutes into the stop and eight minutes after Rutledge entered the patrol car, the other officer deployed his drug dog around Rutledge's van. Gov.'s Ex. 1A at 15:30. The dog alerted to the presence of drugs in the van within twenty seconds of being deployed. Gov.'s Ex. 1A at 15:30-15:50; T. 72. Officers searched the van and found loose methamphetamine, a marijuana vape pen, two partial marijuana cigars, marijuana products from a dispensary in Colorado, two scales with methamphetamine residue on them, and a safe. T. 75; Def.'s Ex. B. The safe was locked, but the officer who took Rutledge to jail found the key in Rutledge's wallet and returned to the scene to open it. T. 76; Def.'s Ex. B. Inside, officers found a handgun and approximately 200 grams of methamphetamine. T. 76-77; Def.'s Ex. B. Agent D'Acunto interviewed Rutledge at the Winner jail on the evening of August 28. T. 109. Rutledge waived his Miranda[3] rights and made some incriminating statements. T. 134; Gov.'s Ex. 2A.
A federal grand jury eventually indicted Rutledge for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it, and possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance. Doc. 1. Magistrate Judge Mark A. Moreno held a hearing on Rutledge's motion to suppress, during which he heard testimony from Trooper Dowling, Sergeant Lord, and Agent D'Acunto. He also received several exhibits into evidence, including videos of the traffic stop and photos and videos of the intersection in Colome. Judge Moreno recommended denying Rutledge's motion to suppress, concluding that probable cause supported the traffic stop, that Sergeant Lord did not prolong the stop and that reasonable suspicion to do so existed even if he did, that the search of the safe was lawful, and that Rutledge's statements during the interview need not be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. Doc. 58. Rutledge has now objected to the report and recommendation.[4] Doc. 63.
This Court reviews a report and recommendation pursuant to the statutory standards found in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), which provides in relevant part that “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” However, “[i]n the absence of an objection, the district court is not required ‘to give any more consideration to the magistrate's report than the court considers appropriate.'” United States v. Murillo-Figueroa, 862 F.Supp.2d 863, 866 (N.D. Iowa 2012) (quoting Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)). Having conducted a de novo review of those portions of the report and recommendation to which Rutledge objects, this Court adopts the report and recommendation.
A traffic stop is a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment and must be supported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion. United States v. Gordon, 741 F.3d 872, 876 (8th Cir. 2013). Probable cause for a traffic stop exists “[a]s long as an officer objectively has a reasonable basis for believing that the driver has breached a traffic law.” IT (cleaned up) . This is true even when the traffic violation is minor, and the stop is simply “a pretext for other investigation.” United States v. Payne, 534 F.3d 948, 951 (8th Cir. 2008); see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996) (). The less-rigorous standard of reasonable suspicion “exists when an ‘officer is...
To continue reading
Request your trial