Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious
Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/pix/jwilkinson.jpgA 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: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/pix/pdf-mini.gif US v. Branch (US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 8/20/2008)
Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious
Quote:
Originally Posted by
proudNMAmember
Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/pix/jwilkinson.jpgA 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: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/pix/pdf-mini.gif US v. Branch (US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 8/20/2008)
Awww, the Bush years, life without the fourth amendment.
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.
Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious
Quote:
Originally Posted by
proudNMAmember
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.
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.
Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lucky225
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
Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stealth Stalker
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 =)
Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lucky225
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.
Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stealth Stalker
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.
Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lucky225
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?
Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious
Hey guys, THEY ARE ALL CROOKS AND DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU AND I!
Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious
Quote:
Originally Posted by
proudNMAmember
Hey guys, THEY ARE ALL CROOKS AND DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU AND I!
You could not have said it better. They do the bare minimum to stay in office and promise everything to be re elected.
As long as the people do not care as a whole, this will continue. And what people care about is what they see on TV.
Like I have said many times, the war on drugs is TEARING APART OUR COUNTRY LIMB BY LIMB
It causes you to sacrifice your freedoms for NO benefit (People have not stopped using drugs yet... and why should they? Its their body.), but for politicians to say they are hard on drugs to get votes from the oblivious majority.
Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious
Personally, I like my car to smell somewhat decent w/ a couple of air fresheners which may now be considered suspicious? We already know now in some areas of this country, just sitting in a vehicle talking to a friend is consicered suspicious. LOL
Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious
Quote:
Originally Posted by
proudNMAmember
Personally, I like my car to smell somewhat decent w/ a couple of air fresheners which may now be considered suspicious? We already know now in some areas of this country, just sitting in a vehicle talking to a friend is consicered suspicious. LOL
X2, my wife even sprays some of that Car-Ma smell in my vehicle, so now if I get pulled over *I* am suspicious because my car smells good by something SHE sprayed when she was in the car? Come on now.
Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lucky225
X2, my wife even sprays some of that Car-Ma smell in my vehicle, so now if I get pulled over *I* am suspicious because my car smells good by something SHE sprayed when she was in the car? Come on now.
Its worth sacrificing your freedom to fight drugs! End the drug menace that is plaguing society!
Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ovencleaner
Its worth sacrificing your freedom to fight drugs! End the drug menace that is plaguing society!
Don't forget the terrorists!! They use fresh smells to blend into society!
Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious
I wish they would search Everyone's house, car, and person everday, and several times on public roads so we could truly be safe! :rolleyes:
Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ovencleaner
I wish they would search Everyone's house, car, and person everday, and several times on public roads so we could truly be safe! :rolleyes:
There should be an officer posted at every residential dwelling. When you leave for work in the morning anything you plan on taking with you is to be searched, as well as yourself. Checkpoints at every freeway exit and entrance, and at all major businesses. Then we could truly be SAFE =)
Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious
I'd expect a decision like this from the lunatic-liberal Ninth Circuit court in California. This case screams of being appealed to the Supreme Court, where it will be likely overturned.
J/
Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jerry540i
I'd expect a decision like this from the lunatic-liberal Ninth Circuit court in California. This case screams of being appealed to the Supreme Court, where it will be likely overturned.
J/
X2, if this isn't overturned our country is screwed.
Re: Federal Court Rules Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious
Heck, I'm getting sick of these police stings.
My last B.S. traffic ticket I gave to my lawyer to take car of on principle. He told me that he has to defend some guy who was driving down the road, saw some old electric motor sitting along side of it, stopped, and picked it up and tossed it in the back of his pickup. A few minutes later he was surrounded by the law and cited for "Stealing farm equipment."
Seems farmers have been getting stuff stolen so they set up this sting along a rural country road.
So if you see junk or trash along side the freeway, don't pick it up!
Guess that applies to hookers as well... :D
Next will be a planted wallet on the sidewalk. Find it and pick it up, and you don't directly take it to the police, you're a thief!
sq
