Facts
A narcotics agent received information that Timothy Kimmons was a large-scale methamphetamine distributor and was going to resupply in Lafayette, Louisiana on September 27, 2022. On that day, license plate recognition systems picked up a car known to be used by Kimmons driving towards and, later in the day, away from Lafayette. The narcotics agent notified another officer on traffic patrol that Kimmons was a drug dealer returning from a large resupply. The narcotics agent also informed the officer that Kimmons had previously been convicted of felony drug offenses and resisting an officer with force and was possibly armed. The officer followed Kimmons and pulled him over after he swerved over a fog line. The traffic stop occurred around 11:00 p.m. in a deserted area.
The officer instructed Kimmons to step out of the car and noticed that Kimmons was looking around and appeared nervous. Kimmons told the officer that he was coming from Shreveport, but the officer knew that he was coming from Lafayette. The officer asked to search the car, and Kimmons consented. Before beginning the search, the officer patted Kimmons down for weapons and felt a solid object that the officer believed to be a weapon in Kimmons’ pants. Instead, it was a one-pound brick of methamphetamine. Kimmons was indicted for possession with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii). Kimmons moved to suppress the methamphetamine obtained during the pat down. The district court denied the motion, and Kimmons conditionally pleaded guilty, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.
The district court sentenced Kimmons to 262 months of imprisonment and 10 years of supervised release. Kimmons timely appealed the district court’s suppression ruling and sentence. The 5th affirmed.
Analysis
Kimmons concedes that the traffic stop was justified; he argues only that the officer’s pat down was unconstitutional. We disagree. During an investigatory stop, an officer may frisk the detainee for weapons if he reasonably suspects that the person is armed and dangerous. The officer need not be certain that an individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man could believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that his safety or that of others is in danger.
At the time of the stop, the officer had information that Kimmons was a large-scale methamphetamine dealer actively engaged in a resupply. The officer testified that based on his experience, weapons are typically used by individuals carrying large amounts of narcotics. And here, a narcotics agent alerted the officer that Kimmons was possibly armed. The officer also had information that Kimmons had previously been convicted of felony drug offenses and resisting an officer with force, contributing to his reasonable fear for his safety. See Majors (knowledge of an individual’s “history of narcotics and weapons offenses” is sufficient for an officer to reasonably believe that an individual “might be armed”). The circumstances surrounding the stop—the stop occurring at night in a deserted area and Kimmons acting nervous contributed to the officer’s reasonable suspicion that his safety was at risk and that Kimmons was armed. See SCOTUS Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (factors contributing to reasonable suspicion include the location of the stop, the suspect’s behavior, and the officer’s experience); McKinney (nervous behavior supports reasonable suspicion).
Based on the totality of the circumstances, it was reasonable for the officer to suspect that Kimmons was armed and to conduct a pat down search. The district court therefore did not err in refusing to suppress the methamphetamine obtained from the pat down.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/25/25-30371.0.pdf