Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21
  1. #1
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Great Lakes
    Posts
    6,538

    Lightbulb Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious

    Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious
    A federal appellate court ruled last week that police can delay a routine traffic stop as long as necessary to conduct a search for drugs. In its decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the validity of a thirty-minute traffic stop in Maryland because the arresting officer claimed the nervous driver had an air freshener hanging from his rear-view mirror and had previously been spotted driving in a run-down neighborhood. The case began on October 29, 2004 when Anne Arundel County Police Officer Tim White saw Michael Lawrence Branch behind the wheel of a White Mercedes Benz sedan. White ordered Branch to pull over at 6:50pm for allegedly running a red light. Officer White remembered having stopped the same sedan less than a month before in a high-crime area, but he had nothing to link the vehicle to illegal drug activity. Nonetheless, White stuck with his hunch. White claimed he saw an air freshener and smelled laundry detergent, so he immediately got on the radio to request a drug dog, which turned out not to be available. A second officer at the scene told White that the defendant, "knows the law... so getting in the car is going to be difficult." White replied, "10-4" and made Branch wait while he tried to call in a dog from another law enforcement agency. During the wait, a check showed Branch was properly licensed and had no outstanding warrants, but the car's registration did not show up on the computer. The car was, in fact, properly registered to Branch's cousin. Some 27 minutes into the stop, Officer White called the owner, Christine Retz, who confirmed that Branch had permission to drive the Benz. After Branch had waited a total of thirty minutes, the drug dog arrived and Branch was handed his ticket. A two-judge majority found Officer White had a reasonable suspicion that Branch was a criminal. "First, the presence of several air fresheners -- commonly used to mask the smell of narcotics -- hanging in the Mercedes," Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote to explain the source of probable cause. "The prior traffic stop of the Mercedes in a drug-trafficking area, Branch's evident nervousness, the presence of air fresheners, and the fact that Branch was driving a car not registered to him. These factors, in combination, could form the basis for a 'reasonable suspicion' of narcotics trafficking." Circuit Judge Roger L. Gregory disagreed and argued that it was obvious that Officer White was dragging out the ticket writing process in order to conduct a fishing expedition with the drug sniffing dog. Judge Gregory cited the US Supreme Court decision Illinois v. Caballes as explicitly outlawing such conduct. "A seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission," the high court ruled. Gregory argued further that past supreme court precedent has found fifteen minutes to be an excessive delay. He also cited testimony from Metropolitan Transportation Authority Officer Vincent Edwards who saw no air fresheners and smelled no particular odor from the vehicle. Edwards had brought the drug dog and was on the look out for air fresheners specifically because they caused his dog to give a false positive response on several occasions. "Officer Edwards's testimony clearly contradicted that of Officer White," Judge Gregory wrote. "In sum, there is insufficient evidence to establish the presence of air fresheners and at the very least there was evidence that called into question Officer White's wavering testimony in this regard. Given that most people are nervous when pulled over by police officers, Officer White's observation that the defendant seemed nervous in conjunction with the defendant's reputation as a drug dealer does not in my opinion rise to the level of reasonable articulable suspicion that would justify a thirty minute detention during a routine traffic incident." Judge Gregory failed to persuade his colleagues and the court upheld Branch's conviction. White's search had found cocaine base and a digital scale in a locked glove compartment. Crack cocaine and a gun were also found hidden in the back of the car. Branch was sentenced to twenty-five years in jail for multiple offenses. A full copy of the decision is available in a 120k PDF file at the source link below.
    Source: US v. Branch (US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 8/20/2008)

  2. #2
    Street Lawyer
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    719, Colorado
    Posts
    7,108

    Default Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious

    Quote Originally Posted by proudNMAmember View Post
    Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious
    A federal appellate court ruled last week that police can delay a routine traffic stop as long as necessary to conduct a search for drugs. In its decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the validity of a thirty-minute traffic stop in Maryland because the arresting officer claimed the nervous driver had an air freshener hanging from his rear-view mirror and had previously been spotted driving in a run-down neighborhood. The case began on October 29, 2004 when Anne Arundel County Police Officer Tim White saw Michael Lawrence Branch behind the wheel of a White Mercedes Benz sedan. White ordered Branch to pull over at 6:50pm for allegedly running a red light. Officer White remembered having stopped the same sedan less than a month before in a high-crime area, but he had nothing to link the vehicle to illegal drug activity. Nonetheless, White stuck with his hunch. White claimed he saw an air freshener and smelled laundry detergent, so he immediately got on the radio to request a drug dog, which turned out not to be available. A second officer at the scene told White that the defendant, "knows the law... so getting in the car is going to be difficult." White replied, "10-4" and made Branch wait while he tried to call in a dog from another law enforcement agency. During the wait, a check showed Branch was properly licensed and had no outstanding warrants, but the car's registration did not show up on the computer. The car was, in fact, properly registered to Branch's cousin. Some 27 minutes into the stop, Officer White called the owner, Christine Retz, who confirmed that Branch had permission to drive the Benz. After Branch had waited a total of thirty minutes, the drug dog arrived and Branch was handed his ticket. A two-judge majority found Officer White had a reasonable suspicion that Branch was a criminal. "First, the presence of several air fresheners -- commonly used to mask the smell of narcotics -- hanging in the Mercedes," Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote to explain the source of probable cause. "The prior traffic stop of the Mercedes in a drug-trafficking area, Branch's evident nervousness, the presence of air fresheners, and the fact that Branch was driving a car not registered to him. These factors, in combination, could form the basis for a 'reasonable suspicion' of narcotics trafficking." Circuit Judge Roger L. Gregory disagreed and argued that it was obvious that Officer White was dragging out the ticket writing process in order to conduct a fishing expedition with the drug sniffing dog. Judge Gregory cited the US Supreme Court decision Illinois v. Caballes as explicitly outlawing such conduct. "A seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission," the high court ruled. Gregory argued further that past supreme court precedent has found fifteen minutes to be an excessive delay. He also cited testimony from Metropolitan Transportation Authority Officer Vincent Edwards who saw no air fresheners and smelled no particular odor from the vehicle. Edwards had brought the drug dog and was on the look out for air fresheners specifically because they caused his dog to give a false positive response on several occasions. "Officer Edwards's testimony clearly contradicted that of Officer White," Judge Gregory wrote. "In sum, there is insufficient evidence to establish the presence of air fresheners and at the very least there was evidence that called into question Officer White's wavering testimony in this regard. Given that most people are nervous when pulled over by police officers, Officer White's observation that the defendant seemed nervous in conjunction with the defendant's reputation as a drug dealer does not in my opinion rise to the level of reasonable articulable suspicion that would justify a thirty minute detention during a routine traffic incident." Judge Gregory failed to persuade his colleagues and the court upheld Branch's conviction. White's search had found cocaine base and a digital scale in a locked glove compartment. Crack cocaine and a gun were also found hidden in the back of the car. Branch was sentenced to twenty-five years in jail for multiple offenses. A full copy of the decision is available in a 120k PDF file at the source link below.
    Source: US v. Branch (US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 8/20/2008)

    Awww, the Bush years, life without the fourth amendment.

  3. #3
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Great Lakes
    Posts
    6,538

    Default Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious

    So let me get this straight, if are vehicle smells bad, we are unprofessional but if our vehicle smells good, we are now suspicious? Big LOL.

  4. #4
    Street Lawyer
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    719, Colorado
    Posts
    7,108

    Default Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious

    Quote Originally Posted by proudNMAmember View Post
    So let me get this straight, if are vehicle smells bad, we are unprofessional but if our vehicle smells good, we are now suspicious? Big LOL.
    This case completely contradicts every decision I have I ever read on the 4th amendment, reasonable suspicion, probable cause or otherwise. Only one judge got it right on that panel -- delaying a traffic stop after everything checked out and there was no REAL reasonable suspicion just to go on a phishing expedition is a blatant abuse of authority and violation of the Constitution.

  5. #5
    Street Lawyer
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    719, Colorado
    Posts
    7,108

    Default Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious

    What next, your walking down the street with cologne on in a bad neighborhood and your nervous because a cop wants to ask you some questions now all of the sudden you're a drug dealer? Same logic by this court.

  6. #6
    Yoda of Radar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    14,448

    Default Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucky225 View Post
    Awww, the Bush years, life without the fourth amendment.
    Oh puhleeze. You think this only started happening in the last eight years? Get real.

    One word: Waco

    "Buy the BEST and screw the rest." - fire65

    "im intrested to see how well you do.i never seen a car JTG before would be a first for me.." - radarrob

  7. #7
    Street Lawyer
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    719, Colorado
    Posts
    7,108

    Default Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious

    Quote Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker View Post
    Oh puhleeze. You think this only started happening in the last eight years? Get real.

    One word: Waco
    I didn't specify W, Sr. had his hand in this too =)

  8. #8
    Yoda of Radar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    14,448

    Default Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucky225 View Post
    I didn't specify W, Sr. had his hand in this too =)
    Ever heard what the FBI was getting away with under Kennedy and Johnson? This ain't anything new, Bro.

    "Buy the BEST and screw the rest." - fire65

    "im intrested to see how well you do.i never seen a car JTG before would be a first for me.." - radarrob

  9. #9
    Street Lawyer
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    719, Colorado
    Posts
    7,108

    Default Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious

    Quote Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker View Post
    Ever heard what the FBI was getting away with under Kennedy and Johnson? This ain't anything new, Bro.
    Maybe not new, but it is official now in Case Law, something the Courts weren't bold enough to do before.

  10. #10
    Yoda of Radar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    14,448

    Default Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucky225 View Post
    Maybe not new, but it is official now in Case Law, something the Courts weren't bold enough to do before.
    Neither Bush appointed those guys. Neither Bush has ever been a judge. So how exactly do they have anything to do with it?

    "Buy the BEST and screw the rest." - fire65

    "im intrested to see how well you do.i never seen a car JTG before would be a first for me.." - radarrob

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-19-2010, 05:49 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-14-2009, 01:19 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-24-2009, 09:27 AM
  4. Ohio Supreme Court Rules Safe Driving Can Be Ticketed
    By StlouisX50 in forum News Stories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-16-2007, 11:35 AM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-20-2006, 09:34 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •