Motley
United States v. Motley
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Myron Motley appeals his convictions, following a conditional guilty plea, for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(iii), and (b)(1)(C). Motley contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence seized during a pretextual traffic stop of his vehicle. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse and remand.
Motley argues that the district court committed legal error by concluding that Trooper Manion had independent probable cause 1 to stop Motley’s vehicle, the stop was also justified by Detective Ames’ reasonable suspicion imputed to Manion through the collective knowledge doctrine, and the stop was not unlawfully prolonged while Manion awaited the arrival of a narcotics-detection dog. We review these conclusions of law de novo and underlying factual findings for clear error. United States v. Turvin, 517 F.3d 1097, 1099 (9th Cir.2008).
We need not resolve the question whether Manion had independent probable cause or reasonable suspicion for the stop because even if he did, the length of Motley’s detention exceeded the period of time reasonably…
Dissenting Opinion
Kozinski, J.
dissenting:
The Supreme Court has described reasonable suspicion as “some minimal level of objective justification” that is “obviously less demanding” than probable cause. United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 , 109 S.Ct. 1581 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (quoting INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 217 , 104 S.Ct. 1758 , 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984)). My colleagues purport to apply this standard but, in fact, honor it in the breach.
In Sokolow , the Court found reasonable suspicion to detain a man so that his luggage could be sniffed by a drug dog, just as in our case. Sokolow waited for the dog for three hours, six times as long as Motley. 490 U.S. at 5 , 109 S.Ct. 1581 . Sokolow was traveling from Honolulu to Miami under a fake name for two days in July. Id. at 3, 5 , 109 S.Ct. 1581 . He bought his ticket with cash, checked no luggage and appeared nervous. Id. The Court recognized that “[a]ny one of these factors is not by itself proof of any illegal conduct and is quite consistent with innocent travel.” Id. at 9 , 109 S.Ct. 1581 . Still, the Court explained, the facts “taken together ... amount to reasonable suspicion” that Soko-low was carrying narcotics. Id. at 9 , 109 S.Ct. 1581 .