USA v. Pack Ii
| Decision Date | 30 September 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 08-41063.,08-41063. |
| Citation | 622 F.3d 383 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Andrew PACK II, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Laurel Franklin Coan, Jr. (argued), Traci Lynne Kenner, Asst. U.S. Attys., Tyler, TX, for U.S.
Denise S. Benson, Asst. Fed. Pub. Def. (argued), Sherman, TX, Amy R. Blalock, Tyler, TX, for Pack.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; Michael H. Schneider, Judge.
Before GARWOOD, DAVIS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Treating the petition for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing, the panel, on further consideration, hereby modifies its prior opinion, United States v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341 (5th Cir.2010), in the following respects. The panel now concludes that United States v. Dortch, 199 F.3d 193 (5th Cir.1999), did not hold that the reasonable suspicion requirement of a Terry stop meant that there must be particularized suspicion of a particular, specific crime, as distinguished from a particular and objective basis for suspecting the detained person or persons of some criminal activity. See, e.g., United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 122 S.Ct. 744, 750, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002) (); Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 2641, 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979) (); United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981). Moreover, our en banc decision in United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500 (5th Cir.2004), did not overrule or abrogate Dortch. Dortch held that reasonable suspicion of one particular offense which admittedly was subsequently wholly dispelled, did not constitute reasonable suspicion of a distinctly different offense. The facts here are different from those in Dortch, and the present situation is consistent with that in Brigham. In Brigham, when facts came to light indicating that information furnished by the driver, which the officers had a right to inquire into, was materially false, the officers then had a right to extend their detention to further investigate. Here, since the information furnished by the driver was later, on questioning of the passenger, completely contradicted, we hold...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Goddard
...stopped individual to investigate where there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity"), modified on denial of reh'g , 622 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2010) ; Derichsweiler v. State , 348 S.W.3d 906, 916 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (distinguishing reasonable suspicion required for a stop from probab......
-
United States v. Alvarez
...from a particular and objective basis for suspecting the detained person or persons of some criminal activity." United States v. Pack , 622 F.3d 383, 383 (5th Cir. 2010) (collecting cases). Otherwise, an officer's reasonable suspicion elevates to probable cause.The majority's analysis fails......
-
Boston v. Harris Cnty.
...449 U.S. 411 (1981). In accord, U.S. v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341, 361 (5th Cir. 2010), modified on other grounds on denial of rehearing, 622 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 620 (2010).12D. Court's Decision Regarding Randle's claim of unlawful detention, she has failed to respon......
-
Kost v. Cotto
...not extend the duration of the stop." United States v. Pack , 612 F.3d 341, 350 (5th Cir.), opinion modified on denial of reh'g , 622 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2010). Once those tasks have been completed, "or reasonably should have been" completed, "[a]uthority for the seizure thus ends." Rodrigue......