Facts
(If you are new to 1983 actions, click here for help)
In the early morning hours of September 23, 2020, Trooper Will Richter pulled over Russell Thompson and Demetrius McChester on Route 287 for speeding. At the time, McChester was driving Thompson’s 2019 Mercedes Benz. Richter approached the vehicle after McChester pulled over and asked for McChester’s license and insurance. After realizing the vehicle was not registered or insured to McChester, Trooper Richter asked
Thompson for his license, which Thompson provided. Trooper Richter noticed that the car’s GPS display had the men’s destination set as Memphis, Tennessee.
Trooper Richter then asked McChester to step out of the car, and McChester complied. Trooper Richter proceeded to question the men separately about where they were coming from, where they were going, and
what was the purpose of their travel. McChester answered that he and Thompson were cousins, that they went to visit Thompson’s family and friends in California and Las Vegas, and that they were returning to McChester’s hometown of New Boston, Texas. While answering questions, McChester crossed his arms and looked away from Trooper Richter. McChester was wearing shorts and a t-shirt, and the morning was chilly.
Trooper Richter then moved to the car to question Thompson. Thompson stated that the men were coming from Las Vegas, where they had stopped to visit his friends. Thompson also told Trooper Richter that he had
lived in New Boston all his life, but that he was licensed in Georgia because he used to operate semi-trucks for a living. At this point, the stop had been ongoing for approximately ten minutes.
Trooper Richter requested their consent to search the vehicle, which they denied. He returned to his squad car and called dispatch. On the call, Trooper Richter stated that the men’s stories were similar but inconsistent.
Richter called Trooper Mark Strange and asked he bring his K-9 unit to the scene to conduct a free-air sniff of the vehicle. Trooper Strange arrived about 26 minutes later. His K-9 began the free-air sniff and alerted to the presence of drugs in multiple areas of the vehicle. Troopers Richter and Strange searched the cabin of the car, which smelled of marijuana, and allegedly found a dispensary receipt. When searching the trunk, Trooper Strange found a loaded handgun.
Trooper Richter returned to his squad car and checked Thompson’s criminal record. The search showed Thompson had a felony conviction, so Richter arrested him for being a felon in possession of a firearm. A few days later, the charges were dropped due to a post-conviction reduction of Thompson’s offense to a gross misdemeanor.
The men sued Trooper Richter, Trooper Strange, and several other defendants in February 2022, alleging various violations of their constitutional rights. The district court granted qualified immunity to the officers. The 5th affirmed.
Analysis
A. Seizure of occupants of vehicle
The stopping of a vehicle and detention of its occupants constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. See Brigham. In line with Supreme Court precedent, we treat routine traffic stops as Terry stops. The “Terry-test” has two parts: first, we “examine whether the officer’s action was justified at its inception,” and then we “inquire whether the officer’s subsequent actions were reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the stop.”
Trooper Richter pulled over Thompson and McChester for speeding, which neither party disputes. Because
Richter’s actions were justified at their inception by the vehicle’s unlawful speed, we continue our analysis by examining the actions he took after the stop.
B. Reasonable suspicion to extend stop
The Supreme Court has stated that authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed. This means that a detention should last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop, unless further reasonable suspicion, supported by articulable facts, emerges.
Trooper Richter’s initial questioning of Thompson and McChester does not violate their constitutional rights. As we have stated, there is no per se rule requiring an officer immediately to obtain the driver’s license
and registration information and initiate the relevant background checks before asking questions. See Brigham. Officers may ask both the vehicle driver and occupant questions, and we have found that questions
within the first ten minutes of the stop before, and while waiting for, computer results do not violate the Fourth Amendment. See Estrada. And the questions do not need to be directly related to why the vehicle was pulled over; questions unrelated to the reason for the stop do not, in themselves, constitute a Fourth Amendment violation. See Estrada.
Trooper Richter asked Thompson and McChester about where they were headed, where they were driving from, why they were traveling, and their relationship to one another. Accordingly, the questioning of Thompson and McChester for less than ten minutes did not violate their right to be free from unlawful seizure.
After Trooper Richter questioned the two men, his request to search the vehicle was denied. He then called for
a K-9 unit, which took an additional 26 minutes to arrive. Was this additional period necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop or did it cross over into a constitutional violation?
When deciding the constitutionality of an officer’s extended traffic stop, we do not paint with bright lines. Instead, we consider the circumstances and the officer’s reasonable suspicion that something illegal was afoot. See Pack. It did not matter that Trooper Richter lacked direct evidence that suggested the occupants were carrying contraband. As long as the police officer acted with reasonable diligence, he could pursue several plausible theories in attempting to resolve the suspicion that reasonably had been created. In the context of an extended traffic stop, we have held that many factors can reasonably create suspicion:
• when there is the absence of an authorized driver, inconsistent stories, nervousness, and the presentation of a fake identification card – See Pack;
• when the vehicle occupants provide inconsistencies and evasions;
• when the driver is short in his responses, traveling a known drug corridor, and traveling with a non-familial, underage companion, See Weisshaus;
• or when the occupants and driver provide the officer with stories containing significant inconsistencies while traveling along an interstate known for transportation of contraband, See Smith.
In the instant case, Trooper Richter claims multiple observations led to his suspicion. Not only were Thompson and McChester traveling a known drug corridor in the wee hours of the morning, but the GPS system displayed
Memphis as their destination (not New Boston, Texas, like they claimed), the vehicle had temporary tags, and McChester displayed multiple signs of evasiveness when he was questioned. In response, Thompson and
McChester provide innocuous explanations for these behaviors and observations. They also argue that while the stories had inconsistencies, they were essentially the same.
C. Clearly established
While Thompson and McChester are not necessarily incorrect, they are unable to show that Trooper Richter’s actions constituted a clearly established violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. On appeal, Thompson and McChester argue that SCOTUS Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015), Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005), and Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) support their position.
Citations to these cases are unpersuasive. First, Rodriguez does not hold that police extension of a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures. In reality, the opinion
merely concluded that a dog sniff that prolongs an otherwise-completed traffic stop is unconstitutional in the absence of reasonable suspicion. Appellants mischaracterize the case—in the end, the Court remanded the question of whether reasonable suspicion of criminal activity justified detaining Rodriguez back to the circuit court.
Second, the holding in Caballes does not provide Appellants with a smoking legal gun. The fact that the dog sniff took place while the officer was performing a license and vehicle check does not mean that an officer may only deploy a narcotics dog while performing a license and vehicle check.
Thompson and McChester’s reliance on Johnson runs into the same problem. The case simply reiterates that an officer—without further reasonable suspicion for doing so—cannot measurably extend the duration of a traffic stop to inquire into matters unrelated to the initial reason for that stop.
Thompson and McChester were driving along a known drug corridor and gave a destination that did not align with the GPS display; Richter did not rely only on their nerves and his “feelings.”
D. Search of vehicle and arrest
Thompson’s remaining arguments on appeal—regarding the search by Troopers Richter and Strange and his arrest—hinge on us first finding that Richter lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. Because we find
Trooper Richter had reasonable suspicion, we are unpersuaded by Thompson’s remaining arguments on appeal.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/24/24-10837.0.pdf