United States v. Porteous, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 United States v. Porteous, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/33

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 12- 1947, 12- 2161

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

TERRELL CAMPBELL,ESLEY PORTEOUS,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s.

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE

[ Hon. Geor ge Z. Si ngal , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Ri ppl e* and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.

Sar ah A. Chur chi l l , wi t h whom Ni chol as & Webb, P. A. , was onbr i ef , f or appel l ant Campbel l .

Ti mot hy E. Zer i l l o, wi t h whom J ohn M. Burke and Zer i l l o LawLLC, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant Por t eous.

Mar gar et D. McGaughey, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t hwhom Thomas E. Del ahant y I I , Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i eff or appel l ee.

December 23, 2013

* Of t he Sevent h Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/33

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Ter r el l Campbel l and Esl ey

Por t eous bot h pl eaded gui l t y t o conspi r acy t o possess f i f t een or

mor e count er f ei t access devi ces, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 371

and 1029( b) ( 2) ( Count One) , and possessi on of f i f t een or mor e

count er f ei t access devi ces, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1029( a) ( 3)

( Count Two) . Mr . Campbel l al so pl eaded gui l t y t o t he use of one or

mor e count er f ei t access devi ces, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.

1029( a) ( 1) ( Count Si x) . 1 The di st r i ct cour t sent enced

Mr . Campbel l t o ei ght een mont hs i mpr i sonment and t hr ee years

supervi sed r el ease and sent enced Mr . Por t eous t o twel ve mont hs

i mpr i sonment and t hr ee year s super vi sed r el ease. Bot h def endant s

wer e or der ed t o pay r est i t ut i on i n t he amount of $8, 687. 01, f or

whi ch t hey ar e j oi nt l y and sever al l y l i abl e. 2

The def endant s t i mel y appeal ed. 3 They now argue t hat l aw

enf or cement of f i cer s l acked r easonabl e suspi ci on f or t he vehi cl e

st op under Ter r y v. Ohi o, 392 U. S. 1 ( 1968) , t hat l aw enf or cement s

ensui ng war r ant l ess sear ch of t he vehi cl e vi ol at ed t he Four t h

Amendment , t hat t he sear ch warr ant l at er obt ai ned f or t he vehi cl e

1 Count s Thr ee t hr ough Fi ve char ged onl y codef endant Mi chaelBar nes, who i s not par t i ci pat i ng i n t hi s appeal .

2 Bar nes i s al so j oi nt l y and sever al l y l i abl e f or t hi s

r est i t ut i on payment .

3 The def endant s had ent er ed condi t i onal gui l t y pl easpur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e 11( a) ( 2) , i n whi cht hey reser ved t hei r r i ght t o appeal t he di st r i ct cour t s deni al oft hei r mot i ons t o suppr ess evi dence obt ai ned dur i ng a Ter r y vehi cl est op t hat r esul t ed i n a vehi cl e sear ch.

-2-


3/33

di d not i ssue on pr obabl e cause and t hat admi ssi on of t he

def endant s uncounsel ed st atement s made at t he scene of t he Terr y

st op vi ol ated t he Fi f t h Amendment because t hey were obt ai ned

wi t hout war ni ngs, i n vi ol at i on of Mi r anda v. Ar i zona, 384 U. S. 436

( 1966) . Addi t i onal l y, Mr . Campbel l chal l enges hi s sent ence.

We af f i r m t he j udgment of t he di st r i ct cour t f or t he

f ol l owi ng r easons. Fi r st , t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ectl y hel d t hat

t he st op of t he def endant s vehi cl e di d not vi ol at e t he Four t h

Amendment . Accor di ngl y, t he war r ant i ssued f or t he sear ch of t he

car was not t ai nt ed by an i l l egal st op. Second, t he def endant s

have f ai l ed t o est abl i sh t hat t hey had a r easonabl e expect at i on of

pr i vacy i n t he vehi cl e sear ched af t er t he st op. Ther ef or e, t hey

can nei t her obj ect t o t he sear ch nor seek suppr essi on of t he

evi dence obt ai ned i n t hat sear ch. Thi r d, t he admi ssi on of

st at ement s obt ai ned t hr ough t he of f i cer s quest i oni ng of t he

def endant s at t he t r af f i c st op di d not vi ol at e t he Fi f t h Amendment .

Consequent l y, t he di st r i ct cour t pr oper l y r ef used t o suppr ess

evi dence gai ned as a r esul t of t he quest i oni ng. Fi nal l y, t he

di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s di scret i on i n i mposi ng a

mi d- gui del i nes- r ange sent ence on Mr . Campbel l .

-3-


4/33

I

BACKGROUND

A. Facts

On May 21, 2011, Scarbor ough Pol i ce Depar t ment Pat r ol

Of f i cer Cr ai g Heber t r esponded t o a r epor t of suspi ci ous conduct at

an el ect r oni cs st or e, Bul l Moose, i n Scar bor ough, Mai ne. Of f i cer

Heber t and a col l eague, Of f i cer Ti mDal t on, i nt er vi ewed t he st or e s

cl er ks. The cl er ks tol d t he of f i cer s t hat t hr ee bl ack men had come

t o t he st or e. Each one ent er ed separ at el y and depar t ed bef or e t he

arr i val of t he next one. Each had at t empt ed t o pur chase vi deo game

syst ems. The f i r st man successf ul l y used a cr edi t car d t o pay $700

f or t wo syst ems. The second man at t empt ed a si mi l ar pur chase, but

both cr edi t car ds he present ed were decl i ned. The name on bot h of

t he decl i ned cr edi t car ds was t he same name as t he one on the

cr edi t car d pr esent ed ear l i er by t he f i r st man. The t hi r d man

ent er ed t he st ore and expr essed an i nt er est i n pur chasi ng vi deo

game syst ems. A cl er k t ol d hi m t hat Bul l Moose coul d not sel l hi m

a game syst emand suggest ed t hat he go t o the Toys R Us s t ore i n

Sout h Por t l and, Mai ne. The t hr ee men depart ed t ogether i n t he same

SUV, whi ch had New Yor k l i cense pl ates. The cl er ks t ol d t he

of f i cer s t he vehi cl e s l i cense pl at e number and sai d t hat t he men

l i kel y were headed t o Toys R Us.

Of f i cer Heber t cal l ed di spat ch; he pr ovi ded a descr i pt i on

of t he vehi cl e and i t s l i cense pl at e number , and he sai d t hat t he

-4-


5/33

vehi cl e was occupi ed by t hr ee bl ack mal es. Sout h Por t l and Pol i ce

Depar t ment Pat r ol Of f i cer Kevi n Ger r i sh hear d t he di spat ch cal l t o

l ook f or t he SUV i n t he Toys R Us par ki ng l ot . He i dent i f i ed an

unoccupi ed vehi cl e mat chi ng t he descr i pt i on. 4 Of f i cer Ger r i sh

wai t ed i n t he par ki ng l ot and saw t hr ee bl ack mal es exi t i ng

Toys R Us car r yi ng bags of mer chandi se. The men got i nto t he

vehi cl e and l ef t t he st or e par ki ng l ot . Of f i cer Ger r i sh cal l ed

di spat ch, and ei t her di spat ch or Of f i cer Heber t t ol d Of f i cer

Ger r i sh t o st op t he vehi cl e. 5

4 Two of t he l i cense pl ate numbers were t r ansposed f r omwhatt he Bul l Moose cl er ks had r epor t ed t o Of f i cer Heber t , but t hel i cense pl ate numbers otherwi se matched.

5 At t he suppr essi on hear i ng, Of f i cer Heber t t est i f i ed asf ol l ows:

Q. And wer e you abl e t o obt ai n what youdescr i bed as mor e cl ear i nf or mat i on?

A. Yes. I t was det er mi ned t hat t he f i rs tmal e went i n, used a credi t car d, bought t hegami ng syst ems and the cr edi t car d wentt hrough and then the second mal e t hat cameact ual l y at t empt ed t o use two di f f er ent cr edi tcards, both wi t h t he name Shawn Col l i ns, andt hen t he t hi r d mal e never act ual l y used t hecar d, but asked about gami ng syst ems and f orwhat ever r eason, t hey t ol d hi m t hey coul dn tsel l t hem and he asked i f t her e was a Toys RUs ar ound or t hey di r ect ed hi m t o Toys R Us.

Q. Di d t he [ si c] l ear n what t he name on t hecr edi t car d t hat t he f i r st mal e used was?

A. Mr . Kel l ey and Gi l l am[t he cl erks ] st at edt hat al l t hr ee car ds were t he same name, ShawnCol l i ns .Q. What di d you do i n r esponse t o l ear ni ng

-5-


6/33

Of f i cer Ger r i sh st opped t he vehi cl e i n a hot el par ki ng

l ot . He appr oached t he vehi cl e and r equest ed a l i cense f r om t he

t hi s i nf or mat i on?

A. Shor t l y thereaf ter , I heard Of f i cerGer r i sh f r om Sout h Por t l and Pol i ce Depar t mentget on our pr i mary and advi se t hat t hevehi cl et he occupant s werehad got t en i nt o t hevehi cl e and were about r eady t o l eave t heparki ng l ot and asked what I wi shed t o do.

Q. Di d you convey your wi shes t o Of f i cerGer r i sh?

A. I advi sed hi m t o go ahead and i ni t i at e at r af f i c st op and t hat I woul d be r i ght al ong.

Q. And at t he t i me, what was your basi s f oraut hor i z i ng hi m t o i ni t i at e a t r af f i c stop?

A. Essent i al l y t he i nf ormat i on t hatMr . Gi l l am and Kel l ey pr ovi ded me was ver ycomparabl e wi t h what t ook pl ace wi t h t he useof at l east t wo separ at e cr edi t car ds wi t h t hename of Shawn Col l i ns, hadn t yet

det er mi nedbeen deter mi ned whet her or not t hef i r st car d was t he same as t he ot her t wocar ds, t he f i r st subj ect used a car d t hat wast he same as t he second subj ect , but t he secondsubj ect had used t wo car ds so t here were atl east t wo separ at e cr edi t car ds t hat t hey sawhi m use wi t h t he name Shawn Col l i ns. Thesecond was decl i ned.

Al ong wi t h t he vehi cl e descr i pt i on, i twas pr et t y speci f i c, gave a descr i pt i on wi t ht he l i cense pl ate number out of New Yor k and

al so, I had pr evi ous knowl edge as t o ani nci dent t hat had pr evi ousl y t aken pl ace, oneof whi ch t hat wasI was i ni t i al l y t hi nki ng ofwas a compl ai nt t hat Of f i cer Bel l er t ook atChr i st mas Tr ee Shops.

R. 78 at 12- 13.

-6-


7/33

dr i ver , Mi chael Bar nes, as wel l as t he vehi cl e s r egi st r at i on and

pr oof of i nsur ance. Bar nes was unabl e t o pr oduce a l i cense.

Mr . Campbel l and Mr . Por t eous bot h pr ovi ded val i d i dent i f i cat i on at

Of f i cer Ger r i sh s request . Of f i cer Ger r i sh t ol d t he men t hat t her e

was a r epor t t hat t hey had had t r oubl e wi t h cr edi t car ds at Bul l

Moose. Thei r r esponse was evasi ve; 6 one man sai d t hat he was not

at Bul l Moose, and t he ot her s conf i r med t he asser t i on.

Of f i cer Ger r i sh t est i f i ed t hat , at some poi nt dur i ng t hi s i ni t i al

exchange of i nf ormat i on, he smel l ed t he scent of mar i j uana comi ng

f r om t he vehi cl e. 7

Of f i cer Ger r i sh asked Bar nes t o get out of t he car .

Bar nes got out of t he car and spoke wi t h Of f i cer Ger r i sh away f r om

Mr . Campbel l and Mr . Por t eous. Bar nes t ol d Of f i cer Ger r i sh t hat

t he vehi cl e was r ent ed and t hat t he men wer e vi si t i ng f r i ends i n

t he ar ea. Of f i cer Ger r i sh pat t ed down and handcuf f ed Bar nes.

I n t he meant i me, Of f i cer Heber t ar r i ved on t he scene.

Of f i cer Heber t asked Mr . Campbel l , who was si t t i ng i n t he r ear

passenger - si de seat , t o exi t t he vehi cl e. Mr . Campbel l compl i ed,

and Of f i cer Heber t l ed hi maway f r omt he vehi cl e f or quest i oni ng.

6 R. 73 at 4.

7 The def endant s have suggest ed t hat Of f i cer Ger r i sh di d notact ual l y smel l mar i j uana. However , t he magi st r at e j udge f ound,based on t he observat i on of t est i mony, whi ch i ncl uded t est i monyr egar di ng Of f i cer Ger r i sh s t r ai ni ng and exper i ence i n dr ugdet ect i on, t hat Of f i cer Ger r i sh di d subj ect i vel y bel i eve t hat hecoul d smel l t he odor of mar i j uana. I d. The magi st r at e j udge di dnot cl ear l y er r i n maki ng t hi s det er mi nat i on.

-7-


8/33

Mr . Campbel l i dent i f i ed hi msel f , sai d t hat he was f r omBr ookl yn and

sai d t hat he and t he ot her men wer e vi si t i ng f ami l y i n t he ar ea.

Mr . Campbel l i ni t i al l y sai d t hat he had been at Bul l Moose, but

l ater deni ed bei ng t here and sai d t hat he had been i n a near by

Subway sandwi ch shop. When asked about usi ng cr edi t car ds at Bul l

Moose, Mr . Campbel l sai d, accor di ng t o Of f i cer Heber t , what car ds,

what cr edi t car ds. 8

Two addi t i onal of f i cer s al so ar r i ved on t he scene,

Of f i cer Dal t on and Scar bor ough Pol i ce Depar t ment

Sergeant Tom Chard. 9 Sergeant Chard br ought a K- 9 part ner , a

Bel gi an Mal i noi s named Chesca. 10 Sergeant Chard asked Mr . Por t eous,

who was seat ed i n t he f r ont passenger - si de seat , t o exi t t he

vehi cl e. Sergeant Chard asked Mr . Por t eous what t he men were doi ng

i n t he ar ea, and Mr . Por t eous sai d t hey wer e l ooki ng f or j obs.

Mr . Por t eous sai d t hat he had r ent ed t he vehi cl e. 11

8 R. 78 at 22.

9 The magi st r ate j udge s Recommended Deci si on i dent i f i esSergeant Chard as a member of t he Sout h Por t l and Pol i ce Depar t ment .I n i t s r esponse t o t he def endant s obj ect i ons t o thi s RecommendedDeci si on, t he Government cl ar i f i ed t hat Sergeant Chard was a memberof t he Scarborough Pol i ce Depart ment .

10 The magi st r at e j udge f ound t hat Chesca was cer t i f i ed i nevi dence detect i on. See R. 73 at 5 & n. 4. At t he suppr essi on

hear i ng, Ser geant Char d t est i f i ed t hat he had been worki ng wi t hChesca si nce J une 2008 and t hat he di d f our hour s of nar cot i cst r ai ni ng wi t h her per week. The Government pr of f eredcer t i f i cat i ons f or Chesca i n nar cot i cs det ect i on and pat r ol .

11 The def endant s cl ai m t hat Bar nes pr evi ousl y had t ol dOf f i cer Ger r i sh t hat he ( Bar nes) had r ent ed t he vehi cl e. The

-8-


9/33

None of t he def endant s were gi ven Mi r anda warni ngs at any

t i me dur i ng t he st op. Whi l e ot her of f i cer s wer e speaki ng t o t he

def endant s, Of f i cer Ger r i sh ent er ed t he dr i ver s si de of t he

vehi cl e, f r ont and back, and br i ef l y l ooked over t he passenger

compart ment . He al so opened t he hat chback and br i ef l y l ooked over

merchandi se l ocat ed t here.

Then, Ser geant Char d asked Mr . Por t eous whet her he coul d

put Chesca i n t he car . Mr . Por t eous r esponded af f i r mat i vel y.

Sergeant Chard put Chesca i nt o t he vehi cl e, and he obser ved her

al er t i ng i n t hr ee ar eas: t he gl ove box, t he pocket of t he

passenger - si de f r ont door and t he cent er consol e. Wi t hout

r equest i ng addi t i onal consent , Ser geant Char d sear ched t he gl ove

box and t he cent er consol e and f ound onl y mar i j uana resi due. 12 When

Chesca al er t ed t o t he gl ove box, i t was l ocked. Ser geant Chard

r et r i eved a vehi cl e key, unl ocked t he gl ove box and sear ched

i nsi de. I n t he gl ove box, he f ound a box, whi ch he al so opened.

I nsi de t he box, he f ound appr oxi mat el y f i f t y i dent i f i cat i on and

cr edi t car ds and t hr ee wal l et s.

Af t er f i ndi ng t he box cont ai ni ng t he car ds, t he of f i cer s

handcuf f ed t he def endant s and t r anspor t ed t hemf or pr ocessi ng. The

r ecor d does not r esol ve t he quest i on of who act ual l y rent ed t hevehi cl e. See R. 78 at 157- 58.

12 Ser geant Char d al so f ound ci gar bl unt s, whi ch ar ef r equent l y used t o smoke mar i j uana, i n t he vehi cl e.Of f i cer Ger r i sh l at er obser ved ash i n a r ear pocket of t he car .

-9-


10/33

of f i cer s sei zed t he vehi cl e and i mpounded i t . The Sout h Por t l and

Pol i ce Depar t ment r ecei ved a war r ant f r om a j udge of t he Mai ne

di st r i ct cour t t o sear ch t he vehi cl e. The war r ant aut hor i zed t he

pol i ce to sei ze, among other i t ems, cr edi t cards and game syst ems

al r eady known t o be i n t he vehi cl e.

B. District Court Proceedings

Fol l owi ng t hei r i ndi ct ment , Mr . Campbel l and Mr . Por t eous

moved t o suppr ess evi dence obt ai ned i n connect i on wi t h t he vehi cl e

st op and sear ch. Speci f i cal l y, t he def endant s ar gued t hat :

( 1) t he def endant s had st andi ng t o chal l enge the sear ch as

vi ol at i ng t he Four t h Amendment ; 13 ( 2) t here was no r easonabl e

ar t i cul abl e suspi ci on j ust i f yi ng t he st op of t he vehi cl e; ( 3) t he

warr ant l ess sear ch of t he vehi cl e was not based on pr obabl e cause

or val i d consent ; ( 4) t he sear ch war r ant l at er obt ai ned f or t he

vehi cl e was not based on pr obabl e cause; ( 5) t he def endant s Fi f t h

Amendment r i ght s wer e vi ol at ed due to the of f i cer s f ai l ur e to

i nf or m t hem of t hei r r i ght s under Mi r anda; and ( 6) st at ement s and

evi dence obt ai ned t hr ough t he st op and i nt er r ogat i on wer e f r ui t s of

t he poi sonous t r ee and shoul d be suppr essed.

13 Bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t , t he Gover nment cont ended t hatnei t her Mr . Campbel l nor Mr . Por t eous, as mere passengers, had ar easonabl e expect at i on of pr i vacy i n t he vehi cl e, and, t her ef or e,nei t her def endant coul d obj ect t o i t s sear ch. The di st r i ct cour tdi d not addr ess t hi s i ssue. I n i t s br i ef t o t hi s cour t , t heGovernment notes i n a f oot note that i t does not concede thest andi ng of t he def endant s t o obj ect . See Gov t Br . 35 n. 4.

-10-


11/33

The magi st r at e j udge who conduct ed t he suppress i on

hear i ng concl uded t hat t he vehi cl e st op was based on t he reasonabl e

suspi ci on t hat t he def endant s wer e i nvol ved i n f r audul ent cr edi t

card t r ansact i ons at Bul l Moose and Toys R Us. The magi st r at e

j udge r ej ect ed t he def endant s ar guments t hat t he st op was based on

a mer e hunch or on r aci al pr of i l i ng. 14 The def endant s act i vi t y,

she concl uded, woul d reasonabl y have caused any pr udent person to

suspect t he f r audul ent use of cr edi t car ds t o pur chase hi gh- demand

consumer el ect r oni cs. 15

The magi st r at e j udge al so concl uded t hat t he war r ant l ess

sear ch of t he vehi cl e was permi t t ed under t he consent and

aut omobi l e except i ons t o t he Four t h Amendment s war r ant

r equi r ement . The magi st r at e j udge f ur t her det er mi ned t hat t her e

was probabl e cause f or i ssuance of t he war r ant t o search t he

vehi cl e and sei ze cont r aband f ound i n i t . Fi nal l y, t he magi st r at e

j udge concl uded t hat Mi r anda war ni ngs wer e not r equi r ed because t he

def endant s wer e not i n cust ody: I n l i ght of al l of t he f act s

and ci r cumst ances, a r easonabl e per son st andi ng i n [ t he

def endant s ] shoes woul d not have bel i eved t hat he was bei ng

subj ect ed t o a r est r ai nt equi val ent t o a f or mal ar r est . 16 On

14 R. 73 at 8.

15 I d. at 9.

16 I d. at 11.

-11-


12/33

Febr uar y 1, 2012, t he di st r i ct j udge ent er ed an or der accept i ng

t he magi st r ate s r ecommendat i on.

Nei t her t he magi st r at e j udge nor t he di st r i ct cour t

addr essed whet her t he def endant s had t he r equi si t e pr i vacy i nt er est

t o addr ess any of t he i ssues concer ni ng t he sear ch.

II

DISCUSSION

A. Stop and Search of the Vehicle

We f i r st consi der t he def endant s ar gument t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t shoul d have suppr essed evi dence obt ai ned dur i ng t he

st op and sear ch of t he vehi cl e. I n r evi ewi ng a di st r i ct cour t s

deni al of a mot i on t o suppr ess, we r evi ew i t s f i ndi ngs of f act f or

cl ear er r or and i t s concl usi ons of l aw de novo. Uni t ed St at es v.

Di az, 519 F. 3d 56, 61 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . Absent an er r or of l aw, we

wi l l uphol d a r ef usal t o suppr ess evi dence as l ong as t he r ef usal

i s suppor t ed by some r easonabl e vi ew of t he r ecor d. Uni t ed St at es

v. Lee, 317 F. 3d 26, 29- 30 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) .

The def endant s submi t t wo separ at e ar guments. Fi r st ,

t hey ar gue that t he st op of t he vehi cl e const i t ut ed an unl awf ul

sei zur e under t he Four t h Amendment . Second, t hey cont end t hat a

l aw enf or cement of f i cer s ensui ng sear ch of t he vehi cl e vi ol at ed

t he Four t h Amendment s pr ohi bi t i on agai nst unr easonabl e sear ches.

We shal l addr ess each argument i n t ur n.

-12-


13/33

1. The Vehicle Stop

The def endant s submi t t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n

hol di ng t hat Of f i cer Ger r i sh s st op of t he vehi cl e was

const i t ut i onal because i t was based on r easonabl e ar t i cul abl e

suspi ci on.

We begi n by set t i ng f ort h t he Four t h Amendment pr i nci pl es

gover ni ng i nvest i gat i ve st ops. I n Ter r y v. Ohi o, 392 U. S. 1, 22

( 1968) , t he Supr eme Cour t ar t i cul at ed the wat er shed pr i nci pl e t hat

a pol i ce of f i cer may i n appr opr i at e ci r cumst ances and i n an

appr opr i ate manner appr oach a per son f or pur poses of i nvest i gat i ng

possi bl y cr i mi nal behavi or even t hough t her e i s no pr obabl e cause

t o make an ar r est . Tempor ar y t r af f i c st ops ar e anal ogous t o t hese

so- cal l ed Ter r y st ops. Ber kemer v. McCar t y, 468 U. S. 420, 439

( 1984) . St oppi ng a vehi cl e and t empor ar i l y det ai ni ng i t s occupant s

const i t ut es a sei zur e f or Four t h Amendment pur poses. Uni t ed St at es

v. Cor t ez, 449 U. S. 411, 417 ( 1981) ( col l ect i ng cases) ; Del awar e v.

Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 653 ( 1979) . Because t he def endant s, as

passenger s i n t he st opped aut omobi l e, wer e sei zed wi t hi n t he

meani ng of t he Four t h Amendment , t hey may cont est whet her t he st op

of t he vehi cl e meet s Four t h Amendment st andards. Br endl i n v.

Cal i f or ni a, 551 U. S. 249, 251 ( 2007) ; see Uni t ed St at es v.

Symonevi ch, 688 F. 3d 12, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . 17

17 See al so, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Fi guer edo- Di az, 718 F. 3d568, 576 & n. 5 ( 6t h Ci r . 2013) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Cr i ppen, 627 F. 3d1056, 1063 ( 8t h Ci r . 2010) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Cor t ez- Gal avi z, 495

-13-


14/33

A war r ant l ess t r af f i c st op sat i sf i es t he Four t h

Amendment s r easonabl eness r equi r ement , U. S. Const . amend. I V, i f

pol i ce of f i cers have a r easonabl e suspi ci on of wr ongdoi nga

suspi ci on t hat f i nds expr essi on i n speci f i c, ar t i cul abl e r easons

f or bel i evi ng that a person may be connected t o t he commi ss i on of

a par t i cul ar cr i me. Lee, 317 F. 3d at 31; see al so Uni t ed St at es

v. Sokol ow, 490 U. S. 1, 7 ( 1989) ; Uni t ed St at es v. J ones, 700 F. 3d

615, 621 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . To const i t ut e r easonabl e suspi ci on, t he

l i kel i hood of cri mi nal act i vi t y need not r i se t o t he l evel r equi r ed

f or pr obabl e cause, and i t f al l s consi der abl y shor t of sat i sf yi ng

a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence st andar d. Uni t ed St at es v.

Ar vi zu, 534 U. S. 266, 274 ( 2002) .

The Supreme Court has eschewed, emphat i cal l y, any

r el i ance on a r i gi d t est or f or mul a t o gi ve the concept subst ance.

Rather , i t has emphasi zed t hat t he determi nat i on must be gr ounded

i n t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances. Cor t ez, 449 U. S. at 417;

see al so J ones, 700 F. 3d at 621; Uni t ed St at es v. Copl i n, 463 F. 3d

F. 3d 1203, 1205 n. 3 ( 10t h Ci r . 2007) ; Uni t ed St at es v.Di az- Cast aneda, 494 F. 3d 1146, 1150 ( 9t h Ci r . 2007) ; Uni t ed St at esv. Sor i ano- J ar qui n, 492 F. 3d 495, 499- 500 (4t h Ci r . 2007) ; 3 WayneR. LaFave et al . , Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e 9. 1( d) , at 404- 05 ( 3d ed.2007) ( not i ng t hat [ a]ny remai ni ng doubt as t o whether passengers

had st andi ng t o obj ect t o t he st op of a vehi cl e or t o t he l engt h oft he passenger s subsequent detent i on was r emoved i n Br endl i n v.Cal i f or ni a) ; 1 Davi d S. Rudst ei n et al . , Cr i mi nal Const i t ut i onalLaw 11. 02( 2) ( b) ( i i i ) ( B) ( 2013) ( [ A] passenger i n a vehi cl e t hati s st opped by l aw enf orcement has been sei zed and t heref ore canchal l enge t he val i di t y of t he pol i ce act i on i n st oppi ng t he vehi cl ei n whi ch he was r i di ng. ) .

-14-


15/33

96, 100 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . Never t hel ess, t he Cour t has di sci pl i ned

t he reasonabl e suspi ci on st andar d by r equi r i ng some obj ect i ve

mani f est at i on t hat t he per son st opped ei t her i s want ed f or past

cr i mi nal conduct , or i s engagi ng or about t o engage i n such

conduct . Cort ez, 449 U. S. at 417 & n. 2. A mere hunch,

t her ef or e, wi l l not j ust i f y a st op. Ter r y, 392 U. S. at 22, 27.

I nf or mat i on t hat i s r ecei ved f r omot her s i n t he cour se of

an i nvest i gat i on, as t he Cour t emphasi zed i n Adams v. Wi l l i ams, 407

U. S. 143, 147 ( 1972) , var i es i n i t s val ue and r el i abi l i t y:

I nf or mant s t i ps, l i ke al l ot her cl ues andevi dence comi ng t o a pol i ceman on t he scene,may var y gr eat l y i n t hei r val ue andr el i abi l i t y. One si mpl e r ul e wi l l not coverever y si t uat i on. Some t i ps, compl et el yl acki ng i n i ndi ci a of rel i abi l i t y, woul dei t her war r ant no pol i ce r esponse or r equi r ef ur t her i nvest i gat i on bef or e a f or ci bl e st opof a suspect woul d be aut hor i zed. But i n somesi t uat i onsf or exampl e, when t he vi ct i m of ast r eet cr i me seeks i mmedi at e pol i ce ai d andgi ves a descr i pt i on of hi s assai l ant , or whena cr edi bl e i nf or mant war ns of a speci f i ci mpendi ng cr i met he subt l et i es of t he hear sayr ul e shoul d not t hwar t an appr opr i at e pol i cer esponse.

I n shor t , i n our sear ch f or some obj ect i ve

mani f est at i on, we must r ecogni ze t hat , at bot t om, t he i nqui r y

deal s not wi t h har d cer t ai nt i es, but wi t h pr obabi l i t i es. Cor t ez,

449 U. S. at 417- 18. I n t he Supr eme Cour t s words:

The i dea t hat an assessment of t he whol epi ct ur e must yi el d a par t i cul ar i zed suspi ci oncont ai ns t wo el ement s, each of whi ch must bepr esent bef or e a st op i s per mi ssi bl e. Fi r st ,t he assessment must be based upon al l of t he

-15-


16/33

ci r cumst ances. The anal ysi s pr oceeds wi t hvar i ous obj ect i ve obser vat i ons, i nf or mat i onf r om pol i ce r epor t s, i f such ar e avai l abl e,and consi derat i on of t he modes or pat t erns ofoper at i on of cer t ai n ki nds of l awbr eaker s.Fr om t hese dat a, a t r ai ned of f i cer dr aws

i nf erences and makes deduct i onsi nf erences anddeduct i ons t hat mi ght wel l el ude an unt r ai nedperson.

The process does not deal wi t h har dcer t ai nt i es, but wi t h pr obabi l i t i es. Longbef or e t he l aw of pr obabi l i t i es wasar t i cul at ed as such, pr act i cal peopl ef ormul ated cer t ai n commonsense concl usi onsabout human behavi or ; j ur or s as f act f i nder sare permi t t ed t o do t he sameand so are l awenf or cement of f i cer s. Fi nal l y, t he evi dencet hus col l ect ed must be seen and wei ghed not i nt er ms of l i br ar y anal ysi s by schol ar s, but asunder st ood by t hose ver sed i n t he f i el d of l awenf orcement .

The second el ement cont ai ned i n t he i deat hat an assessment of t he whol e pi ct ur e mustyi el d a par t i cul ar i zed suspi ci on i s t heconcept t hat t he pr ocess j ust descr i bed mustr ai se a suspi ci on t hat t he par t i cul ari ndi vi dual bei ng st opped i s engaged i nwr ongdoi ng.

I d. at 418. Wi t h t hese pr i nci pl es i n mi nd, we t ur n t o t he case

bef or e us.

Her e, t he st op occur r ed af t er t he pol i ce had r ecei ved a

r eport f r omst ore empl oyees t hat suggest ed t hat t he def endant s may

have engaged i n, or at t empt ed t o engage i n, cr edi t car d f r aud.

These cl er ks wor ked f or an est abl i shed busi ness wi t hi n t he

of f i cer s j ur i sdi cti on and, as par t of t he st or e s sal es f or ce,

t hei r wor k undoubt edl y i ncl uded bei ng al er t f or f r audul ent act i vi t y

at t he st or e. Mor eover , i n a f ace- t o- f ace si t uat i on, t he of f i cer s

-16-


17/33

had an oppor t uni t y t o j udge t he cr edi bi l i t y of t he cl er ks and t he

accur acy of t hei r r epor t . The Bul l Moose cl er ks gave t he of f i cer s

speci f i c i nf or mat i on. They descr i bed t hei r seri al encount er s wi t h

t he def endant s and speci f i cal l y t ol d t he of f i cer s t hat t wo

di f f er ent def endant s had at t empt ed t o use credi t car ds bear i ng t he

same name. The cl erks f ur t her gave t he pol i ce a descr i pt i on of t he

def endant s vehi cl e, i ncl udi ng t he l i cense pl at e number . They al so

pr ovi ded, on t he basi s of t hei r conver sat i on wi t h t he def endant s,

t he pr obabl e l ocat i on of t he def endant s next st op.

Al t hough t hi s encount er al r eady gave the pol i ce of f i cer s

a gr eat deal of i nf or mat i on upon whi ch t o f or mul at e a suspi ci on of

i l l egal act i vi t y, t he of f i cer s went a st ep f ur t her bef or e execut i ng

t he st op and checked t he cl er ks est i mat i on of t he def endant s

whereabout s. An of f i cer went t o t he Toys R Us where, accor di ng

t o t he cl er ks, t he def endant s mi ght next appear . The of f i cer f ound

a vehi cl e mat chi ng t he descr i pt i on of t he def endant s vehi cl e. The

vehi cl e s out - of - st at e l i cense pl at e number mat ched t hat r epor t ed

by the cl er ks, wi t h t he except i on of one i nst ance of i nver t ed

numer al s. Shor t l y af t er war d, t he of f i cer observed t he def endant s

appr oach t he vehi cl e. They wer e car r yi ng bags, suggest i ng t hat

t hey had pur chased i t ems i n t he Toys R Us, as t he cl er ks at t he

ear l i er est abl i shment pr edi ct ed t hey mi ght do. The men not onl y

wer e i n t he r i ght pl ace at t he r i ght t i me but al so f i t t he

suspect s descr i pt i ons. Lee, 317 F. 3d at 31. I n shor t , onl y

-17-


18/33

af t er l aw enf or cement of f i cer s had l ear ned al l of t he f act s

sur r oundi ng t he suspect ed cr i mi nal act i vi t y and had cor r obor at ed

t he det ai l s di d Of f i cer Ger r i sh st op t he def endant s vehi cl e.

We t hi nk that t hi s case i s suf f i ci ent l y si mi l ar t o t he

si t uat i on t hat conf r ont ed us i n Lee as t o be cont r ol l ed by the

pr i nci pl es ar t i cul at ed i n t hat case. Ther e, a st or e empl oyee

cont act ed t he pol i ce t o r epor t suspect ed at t empt ed cr edi t car d

f r aud. I d. at 30. The empl oyee t ol d pol i ce t hat a young Asi an

mal e had t r i ed ( but f ai l ed) t o pur chase a $2, 300 wr i st wat ch usi ng

not one but t wo pl at i num Amer i can Expr ess cards ost ensi bl y i ssued

i n t he name of Zhi Li n. I d. When a pol i ce of f i cer arr i ved at t he

st or e s par ki ng l ot , he obser ved a van cont ai ni ng t wo i ndi vi dual s

mat chi ng t he empl oyee s descr i pt i on. I d. The of f i cer appr oached

t he vehi cl e, and t he dr i ver at t empt ed t o pul l away bef or e the

of f i cer f or ced hi mt o st op. I d. We hel d t hat t he col l ocat i on of

ci r cumst ances pl ai nl y sat i sf i ed t he r easonabl e suspi ci on st andar d

f or an i ni t i al Ter r y stop. I d. at 31.

As i n Lee, t he ci r cumst ances sur r oundi ng t he pr esent

def endant s act i ons at Bul l Moose and i n t he Toys R Us par ki ng

l ot j ust i f i ed Of f i cer Ger r i sh s stop. The di str i ct cour t cor r ect l y

concl uded t hat t he st op was suppor t ed by reasonabl e ar t i cul abl e

suspi ci on. 18

18 Mr . Campbel l makes one addi t i onal argument about t hei ni t i al st op of t he vehi cl e. He submi t s t hat t her e was nopr obabl e cause t o bel i eve a cr i me was commi t t ed when t he vehi cl e

-18-


19/33

2. The Vehicle Search

The def endant s next chal l enge t he di st r i ct cour t s

det er mi nat i on t hat t he war r ant l ess sear ch of t he vehi cl e, f r omt he

dr ugdet ect i on dog s ent r ance i nt o t he vehi cl e t hr ough t he sear ch

of t he l ocked gl ove box, di d not vi ol ate t he Four t h Amendment . The

di st r i ct cour t t ook the vi ew t hat t he def endant s consent , as wel l

as t he aut omobi l e except i on t o t he Four t h Amendment s war r ant

r equi r ement , br ought t hat sear ch wi t hi n const i t ut i onal bounds.

I n exami ni ng t hi s quest i on, we ar e conf r ont ed at t he

begi nni ng of our anal ysi s by an i mpor t ant t hr eshol d quest i on. The

def endant s base t hei r chal l enge t o t he sear ch of t he aut omobi l e on

t hei r st at us as passenger s i n t hat aut omobi l e. Fol l owi ng t he

deci si on of t he Supr eme Cour t i n Rakas v. I l l i noi s, 439 U. S. 128

( 1978) , we have hel d squarel y t hat passengers i n an aut omobi l e who

asser t no pr oper t y or possessor y i nt er est i n a vehi cl e cannot be

sai d t o have t he r equi si t e expect at i on of pr i vacy i n t he vehi cl e t o

was st opped. Campbel l Br . 19. Consequent l y, he cont i nues, t hewar r ant l at er i ssued f or t he sear ch of t he vehi cl e was i nval i dbecause i t was based on t he i nf ormat i on di scover ed i n an i l l egalst op. Ther e ar e t wo pr obl ems wi t h Mr . Campbel l s ar gument . Fi r st ,he has conf l at ed t he st andar ds f or a Ter r y st op of a vehi cl e andf or t he i ssuance of a war r ant . The of f i cer s needed onl y r easonabl esuspi ci on t o st op t he vehi cl e, and we al r eady have det er mi ned t hatsuch suspi ci on was pr esent . Second, Mr . Campbel l s ar gument

negl ect s t he i mpor t ance of t i mi ng i n a pr obabl e cause i nqui r y.Pr obabl e cause can accret e[ ] gr adual l y as an i nvest i gat i onpr ogr esses. Uni t ed St at es v. Lee, 317 F. 3d 26, 32 ( 1st Ci r .2003) . Law enf orcement can st op a car onl y on r easonabl esuspi ci on, and t hen t he ci r cumst ances gi vi ng r i se t o r easonabl esuspi ci on . . . and t he devel opment s t hat unf ol d[ ] dur i ng t he Ter r yst op [ can f ur ni sh] pr obabl e cause. I d.

-19-


20/33

per mi t t hem t o mai nt ai n t hat t he sear ch di d not meet Four t h

Amendment st andards. Uni t ed St ates v. Symonevi ch, 688 F. 3d 12, 19,

21 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . 19

Mr . Campbel l never has cl ai med a possessor y i nt er est i n

t he vehi cl e. 20 I n hi s mot i on t o suppr ess and at t he hear i ng on t hat

mot i on, Mr . Por t eous asser t ed, f or cef ul l y, t hat he di d not l ease

t he car . 21 To put i t mi l dl y, i n t aki ng t hose posi t i ons, nei t her

19 See al so, e. g. , Cr i ppen, 627 F. 3d at 1063 ( hol di ng t hat apassenger may chal l enge hi s sei zur e at a t r af f i c st op but may not

chal l enge t he sear ch of a vehi cl e) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Paul i no, 850F. 2d 93, 96- 97 ( 2d Ci r . 1988) ( hol di ng t hat al t hough a passengerhad mani f est ed a subj ect i ve expect at i on of pr i vacy i n t he ar eaunder a car mat where he hi d cont r aband, he f ai l ed t o demonst r atet hat such an expect at i on was obj ect i vel y r easonabl e and t her ef or el acked st andi ng t o chal l enge the sear ch) .

20 I n i t s opposi t i on t o t he mot i on t o suppr ess, t he Gover nmentasser t ed t hat , i n l i ght of t hei r l ack of any possessor y i nt er est ,t he def endant s coul d not l i t i gat e the sear ch of t he aut omobi l e.The di st r i ct cour t di d not addr ess t he i ssue. I n t hi s cour t , t hedef endant s di d not addr ess t he mat t er i n t hei r openi ng br i ef s, but

t he Gover nment pr eserved adequat el y the i ssue by not i ng i t i n i t sbr i ef and pr ovi di ng t he cont r ol l i ng aut hor i t y. Gov t Br . 35 n. 4( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Symonevi ch, 688 F. 3d 12, 18- 21 ( 1st Ci r .2012) ) ; cf . Rubi n v. I sl ami c Republ i c of I r an, 709 F. 3d 49, 54 &n. 4 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( not i ng t hat t o pr eser ve an i ssue f or appeal ,i t gener al l y must be r ai sed bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t and i n apar t y s openi ng br i ef ) .

21 We acknowl edge t hat t he di st r i ct cour t det er mi ned, on t hebasi s of Ser geant Char d s t est i mony at t he suppr essi on hear i ng,t hat Mr . Por t eous t ol d t he Ser geant t hat he had r ent ed t he car .Not abl y, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not f i nd t hat Mr . Por t eous i n f act

had l eased t he car ; t he cour t mer el y det er mi ned that Mr . Por t eoust ol d t he Sergeant t hat he had done so. Al t hough Mr . Por t eous sst at ement t o t he Ser geant wel l may have gi ven t he of f i cer a basi sf or bel i evi ng t hat Mr . Por t eous had appar ent aut hor i t y t o consentt o t he sear ch of t he car ( a quest i on we need not deci de t oday) , f orpur poses of eval uat i ng t he di st r i ct cour t s r ul i ng on t he mot i on t osuppr ess, we accept Mr . Por t eous s posi t i on t hat he di d not have a

-20-


21/33

def endant has car r i ed hi s bur den t o est abl i sh a r easonabl e

expect at i on of pr i vacy i n t he vehi cl e. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Li pscomb, 539 F. 3d 32, 35- 36 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( Bef or e reachi ng t he

mer i t s of a suppr essi on chal l enge, t he def endant car r i es t he bur den

of est abl i shi ng t hat he had a r easonabl e expect at i on of pr i vacy

wi t h r espect t o t he ar ea sear ched . . . . ) ; i d. at 36 ( hol di ng

t hat t he def endant l acked t he expect at i on of pr i vacy r equi r ed t o

chal l enge a sei zur e wher e t he def endant act i vel y di sowned any

i nt er est i n any of t he sei zed i t ems and r epeat edl y asser t ed at

t he hear i ng on hi s mot i on t o suppr ess t hat t he cont r aband sei zed

was not hi s) . 22 Accor di ngl y, because nei t her Mr . Campbel l nor

possessor y i nt er est i n t he vehi cl e.Our anal ysi s of t hi s quest i on i s not cont r ar y to t he hol di ng

of t he Supr eme Cour t i n Si mmons v. Uni t ed St ates, 390 U. S. 377( 1968) . Ther e, t he def endant t est i f i ed at t he suppr essi on hear i ngt hat he owned a par t i cul ar sui t case because he j ust i f i abl y bel i evedt hat such t est i mony was necessary to est abl i sh t he r equi si t e

st andi ng t o obj ect t o t he sear ch. I d. at 381. The Supr eme Cour thel d t hat such t est i mony coul d not be used agai nst t he def endantdur i ng t r i al t o establ i sh hi s gui l t . I d. at 394. The s i t uat i onher e i s mat er i al l y di f f er ent . No one i s usi ng Mr . Por t eous sst atement agai nst hi m. Rather , Mr . Por t eous deni es he made t hest at ement and, i n any event , abj ur es any rel i ance on a pr oper t yi nt er est i n hi s mot i on t o suppr ess. See Uni t ed St at es v. Samboy,433 F. 3d 154, 162 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( hol di ng t hat t he def endant hadnot demonst r at ed a reasonabl e expect at i on of pr i vacy i n anapart ment t hat was sear ched where hi s st r ategy t hr oughout t hepr oceedi ngs was t o di st ance hi msel f f r omany possi bl e i nt er est andnot i ng t hat t he def endant coul d have ar gued, but di d not , t hat he

l acked an i nt er est at t r i al whi l e ar gui ng t hat he di d i n f act havea r ecogni zed i nt er est . . . i n hi s mot i on t o suppr ess) .

22 See al so Symonevi ch, 688 F. 3d at 21 n. 6 ( The bur den t oest abl i sh a r easonabl e expect at i on of pr i vacy l i es squar el y on t hemovant . ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr guez- Lozada, 558 F. 3d 29, 37 ( 1stCi r . 2009) ; Samboy, 433 F. 3d at 161 ( quot i ng Mi nnesot a v. Car t er ,

-21-


22/33

Mr . Por t eous establ i shed a pr i vacy i nt er est i n t he car , t hey cannot

obj ect t o i t s sear ch by t he of f i cer s.

Because the def endant s do not asser t t he r equi si t e

pr i vacy i nt er est i n t he vehi cl e t hat was sear ched, t hey cannot make

any cl ai m about t he l egal i t y of t he sear ch of t he vehi cl e. We

t her ef or e have no r eason t o addr ess t hei r cont ent i ons wi t h r espect

t o that sear ch.

B. Uncounseled Questioning at the Scene of the Vehicle Stop

The def endant s next submi t t hat t he l aw enf or cement

of f i cer s shoul d have suppl i ed Mi r anda war ni ngs bef or e quest i oni ng

t hemat t he scene of t he vehi cl e st op and t hat any st atement s made

i n t he absence of such warni ngs shoul d be suppr essed.

I n eval uat i ng t he di st r i ct cour t s r ul i ng on whet her t he

def endant s were i n cust ody f or Mi r anda pur poses, we r evi ew t he

cour t s f act ual assessment of t he ci r cumst ances sur r oundi ng t he

i nt er r ogat i on f or cl ear er r or . Uni t ed St at es v. Hughes, 640 F. 3d

428, 435 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . Then, we r evi ew de novo whether , vi ewed

obj ect i vel y, t he di scer ned ci r cumst ances const i t ut e t he r equi si t e

r est r ai nt on f r eedom of movement of t he degr ee associ at ed wi t h a

525 U. S. 83, 88 ( 1998) ) ; cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Sal vucci , 448 U. S.83, 95 ( 1980) ( r emandi ng a case t hat came t o t he Supreme Cour t asa chal l enge t o a pr et r i al deci si on suppr essi ng evi dence so t hatt he def endant s coul d at t empt t o est abl i sh t hat t hey had al egi t i mat e expect at i on of pr i vacy i n t he ar eas sear ched) .

-22-


23/33

f or mal ar r est . I d. ( quot i ng Cal i f or ni a v. Behel er , 463 U. S.

1121, 1125 ( 1983) ( per cur i am) ) .

Mi r anda v. Ar i zona, 384 U. S. 436 ( 1966) , hel d t hat t he

Fi f t h Amendment r equi r es t he excl usi on of i ncr i mi nat i ng st at ement s

obt ai ned dur i ng cust odi al i nt er r ogat i on unl ess t he suspect f ai l s t o

cl ai mt he Fi f t h Amendment pr i vi l ege af t er bei ng sui t abl y war ned of

hi s r i ght t o r emai n si l ent and of t he consequences of hi s f ai l ur e

t o asser t i t . Mi nnesota v. Mur phy, 465 U. S. 420, 430 ( 1984) . The

pur pose of t he Mi r anda doct r i ne i s t o combat t he speci f i c

char act er i st i cs of cust odi al i nt er r ogat i on t hat wor k t o under mi ne

t he i ndi vi dual s wi l l t o r esi st and t o compel hi mt o speak wher e he

woul d not ot her wi se do so f r eel y. Mi r anda, 384 U. S. at 467.

Accor di ngl y, Mi r anda does not appl y out si de the cont ext of t he

i nher ent l y coer ci ve cust odi al i nt er r ogat i ons f or whi ch i t was

desi gned. Rober t s v. Uni t ed St at es, 445 U. S. 552, 560 ( 1980) .

Cust ody f or pur poses of Mi r anda must be nar r owl y ci r cumscr i bed

t o ef f ect uat e t he pr eci se pur pose of t he war ni ngs. See Mur phy, 465

U. S. at 430. I n det er mi ni ng whet her a person was i n cust ody f or

t hi s pur pose, t her ef or e, a cour t must keep i n mi nd t hat [ t ] he

war ni ngs pr ot ect persons who, exposed t o such i nt er r ogat i on wi t hout

t he assi st ance of counsel , ot her wi se mi ght be unabl e t o make a f r ee

and i nf or med choi ce t o r emai n si l ent . Rober t s, 445 U. S. at

560- 61.

-23-


24/33

I n det er mi ni ng whet her a per son det ai ned at a vehi cul ar

st op shoul d have been gi ven Mi r anda warni ngs, t he Supreme Cour t and

t he cour t s of appeal s have f ol l owed t he pr i nci pl es t hat we j ust

have ar t i cul at ed. I n Ber kemer v. McCar t y, 468 U. S. 420, 440

( 1984) , f or i nst ance, t he Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat Mi r anda warni ngs

ar e not r equi r ed dur i ng r out i ne st ops i nvol vi ng t r af f i c mat t er s.

The Cour t acknowl edged t hat a t r af f i c st op i s a sei zure f or

Four t h Amendment pur poses because f ew motor i st s woul d f eel f r ee

ei t her t o di sobey a di r ect i ve t o pul l over or t o l eave t he scene of

a t r af f i c st op wi t hout bei ng t ol d t hey mi ght do so. I d. at

436- 37. The Cour t di st i ngui shed t r af f i c st ops f r om t he set t i ng

t hat occur s i n Mi r andaj ai l house i nt er r ogat i ons. I d. at 437- 39.

[ C] i r cumst ances associ at ed wi t h t he typi cal t r af f i c st op ar e not

such t hat t he mot or i st f eel s compl et el y at t he mer cy of t he

pol i ce. I d. at 438. Tr af f i c st ops ar e usual l y t empor ar y and

br i ef . I d. at 437- 38. They ar e publ i c, whi ch bot h r educes t he

abi l i t y of an unscr upul ous pol i ceman t o use i l l egi t i mat e means t o

el i ci t sel f - i ncr i mi nat i ng st at ement s and di mi ni shes t he mot or i st s

f ear t hat , i f he does not cooper at e, he wi l l be subj ect ed t o

abuse. I d. at 438. Typi cal l y each mot or i st i s conf r ont ed by onl y

one or t wo pol i cemen. I d. Al l of t hi s combi nes to make a t r af f i c

st op subst ant i al l y l ess pol i ce domi nat ed t han t he ki nds of

i nt er r ogat i on at i ssue i n Mi r anda i t sel f . I d. at 439 ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Tr af f i c st ops ar e compar at i vel y

-24-


25/33

nont hr eat eni ng, and t her ef or e do not r equi r e Mi r anda war ni ngs t o

count er t he t hr eat of coer ci on. I d. at 440.

Not abl y, despi t e i t s hol di ng t hat , gener al l y, l aw

enf or cement of f i cer s are not r equi r ed t o gi ve Mi r anda war ni ngs at

t r af f i c st ops, t he Cour t est abl i shed no cat egor i cal r ul e. I ndeed,

i t hel d that Mi r anda war ni ngs woul d be requi r ed as soon as a

suspect s f r eedom of act i on i s cur t ai l ed t o a degr ee associ at ed

wi t h f or mal ar r est . I d. ( quot i ng Behel er , 463 U. S. at 1125) .

Thus, our t ask post - Ber kemer i s t o det er mi ne whet her t he f act s of

a speci f i c case i ndi cat e a si t uat i on mor e aki n t o a r out i ne t r af f i c

st op, at whi ch Mi r anda war ni ngs are not r equi r ed, or i ndi cat e t hat

a suspect has been subj ect ed t o r est r ai nt s comparabl e t o t hose

associ at ed wi t h a f or mal ar r est , at whi ch poi nt Mi r anda war ni ngs

ar e r equi r ed. I d. at 441. I n under st andi ng t hi s anal ysi s, we

begi n by not i ng t hat t he Cour t has hel d t hat a t r af f i c st op i s

anal ogous t o a Ter r y st op and, t her ef or e, t hat per sons t empor ar i l y

det ai ned pur suant t o such st ops ar e not i n cust ody f or t he

pur poses of Mi r anda. I d. at 440. I n t he cour se of i t s opi ni on,

t he Supr eme Cour t al so noted t he absence of any suggest i on i n

[ i t s] opi ni ons t hat Ter r y st ops ar e subj ect t o t he di ct at es of

Mi r anda due to [ t ] he compar at i vel y nont hr eat eni ng char act er of

det ent i ons of t hi s sor t . I d.

I n f ocusi ng on Ter r y st ops, we al so have r ecogni zed t hat ,

as a gener al r ul e, Ter r y st ops do not i mpl i cat e t he r equi r ement s

-25-


26/33

of Mi r anda, because Ter r y st ops, t hough i nherent l y somewhat

coer ci ve, do not usual l y i nvol ve t he t ype of pol i ce domi nat ed or

compel l i ng atmosphere whi ch necess i t ates Mi r anda warni ngs. Uni t ed

St at es v. St r ei f el , 781 F. 2d 953, 958 ( 1st Ci r . 1986) ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Mor e r ecent l y, i n Uni t ed St at es v.

For ni a- Cast i l l o, 408 F. 3d 52 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) , we have r ei t er at ed

t hat gener al appr oach whi l e obser vi ng, as t he Supr eme Cour t di d i n

Ber kemer , t hat a val i d i nvest i gat or y st op can escal at e i nt o

cust ody f or Mi r anda pur poses wher e t he t ot al i t y of t he

ci r cumst ances shows t hat a r easonabl e person woul d underst and that

he was bei ng hel d t o t he degr ee associ at ed wi t h a f or mal ar r est .

I d. at 63 ( quot i ng St ansbur y v. Cal i f or ni a, 511 U. S. 318, 322

( 1994) ( per cur i am) ) . Whi l e no sci ent i f i cal l y pr eci se f or mul a

can det er mi ne whet her a Ter r y st op r i ses t o the l evel of a f or mal

ar r est , Uni t ed St at es v. Tr ueber , 238 F. 3d 79, 93 ( 1st Ci r . 2001)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) , t he ul t i mat e i nqui r y i s

whet her t her e was a f or mal ar r est or r est r ai nt on f r eedom of

movement of t he degr ee associ ated wi t h a f ormal arr est . 23 Thompson

v. Keohane, 516 U. S. 99, 112 ( 1995) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . Keepi ng i n mi nd t hat t he t est i s an obj ect i ve one,

St ansbur y, 511 U. S. at 323, we f ocus ( wi t hout l i mi t at i on) on f our

23 To t he ext ent t hat t he def endant s suggest t hat Mi r andacomes i nt o pl ay si mpl y because a r easonabl e person i n t hei r shoeswoul d not have f el t f r ee t o l eave, t hat suggest i on i s f or ecl osed byUni t ed St at es v. St r ei f el , 781 F. 2d 953, 960- 62 ( 1st Ci r . 1986) .

-26-


27/33

f act or s: ( 1) whet her t he suspect was quest i oned i n f ami l i ar or at

l east neut r al surr oundi ngs; ( 2) t he number of l aw enf or cement

of f i cer s pr esent at t he scene; ( 3) t he degr ee of physi cal

r est r ai nt pl aced upon t he suspect ; and ( 4) t he dur at i on and

char act er of t he i nt er r ogat i on. Hughes, 640 F. 3d at 435 ( i nt er nal

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) . 24

We bel i eve t hat t he ci r cumst ances sur r oundi ng t hi s st op

woul d not be vi ewed by a r easonabl e person as t he f unct i onal

equi val ent of a f or mal ar r est . The def endant s wer e quest i oned i n

a neut r al l ocat i on, a hot el par ki ng l ot . See Uni t ed St at es v.

J ones, 187 F. 3d 210, 218 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ( Al t hough t he l ocat i on

appar ent l y was not f ami l i ar t o [ t he def endant ] and the ar ea was not

wel l - l i t , a publ i c hi ghway i s a neut r al set t i ng t hat pol i ce

24 We not e t hat t hi s appr oach i s consi st ent across t he

ci r cui t s. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. FNU LNU, 653 F. 3d 144, 153( 2d Ci r . 2011) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Acost a, 363 F. 3d 1141, 1148- 50( 11t h Ci r . 2004) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Fost er , 70 F. App x 415, 416- 17( 9t h Ci r . 2003) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Leshuk, 65 F. 3d 1105, 1108- 10( 4t h Ci r . 1995) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Lenni ck, 917 F. 2d 974, 976- 78( 7t h Ci r . 1990) ; see al so 3 Wi l l i am E. Ri ngel , Sear ches andSei zur es, Ar r est s and Conf essi ons 27: 7 ( 2d ed. 2013) ( Cour t s areal so vi r t ual l y unani mous i n f i ndi ng t hat quest i oni ng of a suspectdur i ng an i nvest i gat i ve st op aut hor i zed under Ter r y v. Ohi o, doesnot meet t he r equi r ement of cust odi al i nt er r ogat i on. . . . [ I ] t i sl i kel y f r om t he Cour t s l anguage t hat some r oadsi de det ent i onsmi ght const i t ut e cust ody under Mi r anda, gi ven t he ri ght set of

ci r cumst ancese. g. , a l engt hy det ent i on, t he show of f or ce, orpl acement of t he suspect i nt o t he pol i ce vehi cl e. ( f oot not eomi t t ed) ) ; i d. 27: 8 ( poi nt i ng out t hat cases consi der t hel ocat i on and l engt h of quest i oni ng, t he number of pol i ce of f i cer spr esent , whether t he pol i ce made a st atement as t o whether t hedef endant was i n cust ody, t he use of physi cal r est r ai nt , t he nat ur eof quest i oni ng, t he of f i cer s demeanor and t he use of a weapon) .

-27-


28/33

of f i cer s ar e not i n a posi t i on t o domi nat e as t hey ar e, f or

exampl e, an i nt er r ogat i on r oomat a j ai l house. ) . Ther e wer e f our

or f i ve pol i ce of f i cer s on t he scene quest i oni ng t hr ee def endant s.

The pol i ce of f i cer s spl i t up and quest i oned t he def endant s

separatel y, such t hat each def endant was quest i oned by at most t wo

of f i cer s. Ther e i s no i ndi cat i on t hat t hi s pol i ce- t o- suspects

r at i o was overwhel mi ng t o t he def endant s. See Uni t ed St ates v.

Cr ooker , 688 F. 3d 1, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( det er mi ni ng t hat suspect

was not i n cust ody f or Mi r anda pur poses where no more t han t wo

agent s wer e i n di r ect conver sat i on wi t h t he suspect at one t i me) .

Al t hough the def endant s may have t emporar i l y been unabl e t o use

t hei r cel l ul ar phones, nei t her Mr . Campbel l nor Mr . Por t eous was

physi cal l y r est r ai ned at t he t i me of t he quest i oni ng. See i d. ;

Hughes, 640 F. 3d at 435- 36. The l aw enf orcement of f i cers on t he

scene made no show of f orce by usi ng t hei r weapons. Cf . Cr ooker ,

688 F. 3d at 4, 11- 12 ( hol di ng t hat suspect was not i n cust ody even

wher e l aw enf or cement of f i cer s i ni t i al l y appr oached house wi t h

weapons dr awn) . Fi nal l y, t he dur at i on and char act er of t he

i nt er r ogat i on wei gh i n f avor of f i ndi ng t hat t he def endant s wer e

not i n cust ody. Ther e i s no i ndi cat i on t hat t he st op l ast ed f or an

i nappr opr i at el y l ong per i od of t i me or t hat t he of f i cer s act ed wi t h

host i l i t y t owar d t he def endant s. See Uni t ed St at es v. Guer r i er ,

669 F. 3d 1, 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( hol di ng t hat suspect was not i n

cust ody wher e the at mospher e was r el at i vel y cal m and

-28-


29/33

nont hr eat eni ng and t he i nt er vi ew l ast ed a rel at i vel y shor t

t i me) .

I n si mi l ar ci r cumst ances, we have det er mi ned that

suspect s wer e not i n cust ody at t he t i me of quest i oni ng. For

exampl e, i n Cr ooker , 688 F. 3d at 4, l aw enf orcement agent s execut ed

a sear ch warr ant at t he def endant s house. There were between f our

and ei ght agent s, who appr oached t he house wi t h weapons drawn. I d.

Dur i ng a mul t i pl e- hour sear ch, t wo agent s conver sed wi t h t he

def endant . I d. at 5. The agent s di d not advi se t he def endant of

hi s Mi r anda r i ght s or ar r est hi m. I d. The def endant made

i ncr i mi nat i ng st at ement s about t he l ocat i on of f i r ear ms, ammuni t i on

and mar i j uana i n t he house. I d. The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he

def endant s mot i on t o suppr ess t hose st at ement s; we af f i r med,

concl udi ng t hat t he def endant was not i n cust ody f or Mi r anda

pur poses. I d. at 6, 11- 12. We speci f i cal l y consi der ed t hat t he

i nt er r ogat i on was conduct ed i n t he si gni f i cant l y l ess

i nt i mi dat i ng set t i ng of t he def endant s home; t hat t he of f i cer s

weapons wer e hol st er ed thr oughout t he maj or i t y of t he sear ch; t hat

no more than t wo agent s were i n di r ect conver sat i on wi t h t he

def endant at any gi ven t i me; t hat t he def endant never was

r est r ai ned physi cal l y; and t hat t he i nt er act i ons wer e cooper at i ve

and r el at i vel y br i ef . I d. at 11- 12; see al so Hughes, 640 F. 3d at

435- 37 ( hol di ng t hat suspect was not i n cust ody wher e t he i nt er vi ew

occur r ed i n hi s home, t he number of of f i cer s was i mpr essi ve but

-29-


30/33

not over whel mi ng and onl y two of f i cer s par t i ci pat ed i n t he

quest i oni ng, t here was no show of f orce and no weapons were

br andi shed, t he def endant was not r est r ai ned physi cal l y, t he

ambi ance was r el axed and non- conf r ont at i onal and t he i nt er vi ew

l ast ed f or ni net y mi nut esa r el at i vel y shor t dur at i on) ;

For ni aCast i l l o, 408 F. 3d at 57 n. 3, 64- 65 ( hol di ng t hat suspect

was not i n cust ody wher e si ngl e of f i cer st opped suspect on busy

publ i c r oad, at one poi nt dr ew hi s servi ce r evol ver i n a def ensi ve

posi t i on, handcuf f ed t he suspect f or t en t o f i f t een mi nut es,

f r i sked t he suspect and quest i oned t he suspect whi l e he was

handcuf f ed) .

Here, because Mr . Campbel l and Mr . Por t eous were not i n

cust ody at t he t i me of t hei r quest i oni ng, l aw enf or cement di d not

have t o i nf or mt hemof t hei r Mi r anda r i ght s, and t he di st r i ct cour t

pr oper l y ref used t o suppr ess t hei r st at ement s.

C. Mr. Campbells Sentence

We typi cal l y exami ne sent enci ng deci si ons f or abuse of

di scret i on, whi ch i s real l y a r evi ew f or r easonabl eness. Uni t ed

St at es v. Denson, 689 F. 3d 21, 26 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) , cer t . deni ed,

133 S. Ct . 996 ( 2013) .

Mr . Campbel l submi t s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n

i mposi ng hi s mi d- gui del i nes- r ange sent ence. 25 A r evi ewi ng cour t

25 Mr . Por t eous does not appeal hi s sent ence.

-30-


31/33

must consi der both t he pr ocedur al and subst ant i ve r easonabl eness of

a sent ence. Gal l v. Uni t ed St at es, 552 U. S. 38, 51 ( 2007) . Her e,

Mr . Campbel l r ai ses no pr ocedur al chal l enges on appeal . 26 Rather ,

he chal l enges t he subst ant i ve r easonabl eness of t he sent ence. I n

hi s vi ew, t he di st r i ct cour t f ai l ed t o gi ve pr oper wei ght t o t he

medi cal car e needed t o t r eat hi s pol ymyosi t i s, among ot her per sonal

f act or s. See i d. at 56- 58 ( char act er i zi ng t he wei ght gi ven t o

speci f i c f act s as a subst ant i ve r easonabl eness quest i on) .

We f i r st not e t hat Mr . Campbel l r ai sed no obj ect i on t o

t he gui del i nes cal cul at i on i n t he pr esent ence r epor t or t o t he

cal cul at i on as expl ai ned by t he di st r i ct cour t dur i ng hi s

sent enci ng hear i ng. More f undament al l y, Mr . Campbel l s

ei ght een- mont h sent ence f al l s squar el y wi t hi n t he sent enci ng

cour t s gui del i nes cal cul at i on. The base of f ense l evel was si x.

The amount of l oss added ei ght l evel s and possess i on of a

f r audul ent l i cense added t wo l evel s. The def endant r ecei ved a

t hr ee- l evel r educt i on f ol l owi ng hi s gui l t y pl ea, so t he f i nal

of f ense l evel was t hi r t een. Gi ven hi s cri mi nal hi st or y cat egor y of

I I , t he r esul t i ng gui del i nes r ange was f i f t een t o t went y- one

mont hs.

26 Pr ocedur al er r or s i ncl ude: f ai l i ng t o cal cul at e ( ori mpr oper l y cal cul at i ng) t he Gui del i nes r ange, t r eat i ng t heGui del i nes as mandat or y, f ai l i ng t o consi der t he 3553( a) f act or s,sel ect i ng a sent ence based on cl ear l y er r oneous f act s, or f ai l i ngt o adequat el y expl ai n t he chosen sent ence. Gal l v. Uni t ed St at es,552 U. S. 38, 51 ( 2007) .

-31-


32/33

Never t hel ess, on appeal , Mr . Campbel l submi t s t hat t he

t r i al cour t f ai l ed t o consi der adequat el y hi s medi cal needs and

l i f e ci r cumst ances. To t he cont r ar y, t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat t he

cour t suf f i ci ent l y consi der ed t hose f actor s. Fi r st , t he cour t

acknowl edged t hat i t had car ef ul l y r evi ewed t he cont ent s of t he

wr i t t en pr esent ence i nvest i gat i on r epor t , whi ch descr i bes

Mr . Campbel l s medi cal needs and t o whi ch Mr . Campbel l of f ered no

obj ect i on. 27 The cour t l i st ened t o bot h Mr . Campbel l and

Mr . Campbel l s at t or ney di scuss hi s medi cal condi t i on at t he

sent enci ng hear i ng. Pr i or t o announci ng t he sent ence, t he cour t

i ndi cat ed t hat i t had consi der ed t he pr esent ence r epor t , t he

hi st or y of t he def endant and l et t er s of suppor t ( whi ch, accor di ng

t o Mr . Campbel l s at t or ney, di scussed t he def endant s medi cal

condi t i on) . I t i s cl ear t hat t he cour t consi der ed Mr . Campbel l s

per sonal ci r cumst ances. 28

Fur t her , t he cour t expl ai ned t hat t he ei ght een- mont h

sent ence i t i mposed di d pr ovi de l eni ency f or Mr . Campbel l s

27 R. 137 at 2, 17- 18.

28 Mr . Campbel l al so r ai ses t hat he has a young daught er ; t hatpr i or t o 2009, he had ver y l i t t l e i nt er act i on wi t h t he cr i mi nalj ust i ce syst em; and t hat he had accepted r esponsi bi l i t y f or hi s

cr i mes. I n announci ng Mr . Campbel l s sent ence, t he di st r i ct cour tmade i t cl ear t hat i t was awar e of t he def endant s f ami l y andhi st or y wi t h t he cr i mi nal j ust i ce syst em. I d. at 18- 20. Thecour t s gui del i nes cal cul at i on al r eady i ncl uded a t hr ee- l evelr educt i on f or accept ance of r esponsi bi l i t y. I d. at 18. Ther e i snot hi ng unr easonabl e i n t he sent enci ng j udge s t r eat ment of t hesef act s.

-32-


33/33

per sonal char act er i st i cs. The cour t st at ed t hat , on t he basi s of

t he record, i t woul d have i mposed an above- gui del i nes- r ange

sent ence absent such f act s because i t bel i eved t hat t he ser i ousness

of t he of f ense and t he def endant s cri mi nal hi st or y, par t i cul ar l y

t hat Mr . Campbel l had been out on bai l f or a si mi l ar of f ense when

he commi t t ed t he cr i me f or whi ch he was bei ng sent enced, war r ant ed

an above- gui del i nes sent ence. 29 However , because of t he l et t ers

of suppor t [ he] ha[ d] r ecei ved . . . and t he r ecommendat i on of t he

Government , t he cour t ordered a very l eni ent sent ence. 30 Under

t hese ci r cumst ances, i t cannot be sai d t hat t he sent enci ng cour t s

deci si on to i ssue a mi d- gui del i nes- r ange sent ence was an abuse of

di scr et i on.

Conclusion

The j udgment of t he di st r i ct cour t i s af f i r med.

AFFIRMED.

29 I d. at 19.

30 I d. at 19- 20.

33

Documents

United States v. Porteous, 1st Cir. (2013)