United States v. Tranette Evans

MEMORANDUM *

Tranette Regina Evans appeals the district court’s denial of her motion to suppress, following which she entered a conditional guilty plea to using one or more unauthorized access devices in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029 (a)(2), and to committing aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(l). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

Evans’s appeal implicates the proper scope of a traffic stop. “A seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a [...] ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission.” Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407, 125 S.Ct. 834 , 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (2005). An “officer’s inquiries into matters unrelated to the justification for the traffic stop *31 ... do not convert the encounter into something other than a lawful seizure, so long as those inquiries do not measurably extend the duration of the stop.” Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 , 129 S.Ct. 781, 788 , 172 L.Ed.2d 694 (2009). Thus, during that period that it is reasonable, a police officer may lawfully request identification from a passenger in the car. See Hiibel v. Sixth…

dissenting:

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s view that the police acted lawfully when they prolonged Evans’s detention in order to investigate her passenger. I would hold that any detention of a driver for a “measurable” period during which the police are neither investigating the driver’s entitlement and ability to operate the car, nor writing a ticket, results in an additional seizure of the driver. That additional seizure, absent any additional suspicion as to the driver, is unconstitutional.

A broken taillight, an incomplete stop at a stop sign, or an illegal U-turn should justify no more than a traffic stop and a ticket — not an additional detention of the driver while the police investigate the backgrounds of any number of passengers who happen to be in the stopped car. An analogy to a traditional Terry stop makes this clear. Suppose that five friends are walking down the street, and the police conduct a lawful Terry stop of one who arouses their suspicion, but the stop clears that person of any further suspicion. Surely the police could not then continue to detain the person they had originally stopped while investigating the person’s four friends, one by one:…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 22 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S . CO U RT OF AP PE A LS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50166

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:08-cr-01207-CAS-

v.

MEMORANDUM *

TRANETTE REGINA EVANS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 10, 2011 Pasadena, California

Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Tranette Regina Evans appeals the district court's denial of her motion to

suppress, following which she entered a conditional guilty plea to using one or

more unauthorized access devices in violation of 18 U.S.C. y 1029(a)(2), and to

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. committing aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. y 1028A(a)(1). We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. y 1291. We affirm.

Evans's appeal implicates the proper scope of a traffic stop.…