Saturday, June 9, 2012

Tenth Circuit US v. Neff 10-3336

Decision here.

   Neff was driving along I-70 in Kansas, in a rural area.  After passing signs that warned of a drug checkpoint ahead with K9s in use, Neff took the next exit.  Of course, narcotic checkpoints are illegal and there was no such checkpoint ahead.  The signs were part of a ruse, and Kansas state troopers were conducting surveillance of the next exit with the intention of finding a reason to stop cars that took it.

   A trooper followed Neff after he left the highway, and noted that Neff's car was registered to a nearby city.  This particular exit was a gravel road which led to a few houses, but no businesses.  Neff turned in to one of the driveways, stopped there briefly, looked suprised to see the Trooper, and then tried to drive back to the interstate.  The trooper had gotten out of his car by now, and held out his hand directing Neff to stop.  The trooper had not witnessed any traffic violations, and would later testify to the reasons that he stopped Neff:

"The reason I stopped him is they got off the interstate after
seeing the drug check lane ahead signs, it was a Shawnee
County car went into a rural Wabaunsee County area, pulling
into a driveway where I don't think the vehicle belonged, the
surprised look that the driver gave me, the short time that they
stayed there, the surprised look that he gave me.  I thought
something is very suspicious about this that I didn't really
care for or didn't like.  Therefore, I stepped out of the vehicle
when he pulled out.  That's when I stopped them."

   Really didn't care for or didn't like... wow.  Just wow.

   Anyway, Neff stopped, the trooper directed him to get out of the car, frisked him (the court didn't bother to address whether or not this was legal), and then searched the car after Neff admitted to having a crack pipe on him.  The car contained $10,000 and lots of cocaine.  Neff moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the trooper stopped him without reasonable suspicion.  The trial court denied his motion, and he appealed.  The Tenth Circuit ruled that although Neff's apparent attempt to avoid the drug checkpoint could be used as a factor in developing RS, it wasn't enough.  Further, the additional facts that the trooper testified to contributed only marginally, and taken as a whole all of this still didn't amount to a reason to stop Neff.

   The court compared this case to Illinois v. Wardlow, which involved a sudden unprovoked flight from the police.  Although that was reasonable suspicion, nothing in this case rose to that level.  The evidence was suppressed, and Neff's conviction was reversed.

No comments:

Post a Comment