Summaries of Selected Opinions, 1117 COBJ, Vol. 46, No. 10 Pg. 87
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-5125. United States v. Cone. 8/24/2017. N.D.Okla. Judge Hartz. Fourth Amendment— Motion to Suppress—Criminal History Questions—Travel Plan Questions.
A police officer followed defendant's pickup truck after noticing that it did not have a functioning license-plate light. He found the truck in a motel parking lot, near another motel known for criminal activity. There, the officer knocked on the driver's side window and informed defendant that his car's tag light was not functioning. He questioned defendant about his criminal history, including whether he had been to prison before, to which defendant responded affirmatively. The officer also asked defendant what he was doing at the motel. He then asked defendant to exit his truck while he ran a computer check on his license. As defendant got out, the officer noted a pistol protruding from the truck's center console. He drew his own pistol and ordered defendant to get on the ground. Defendant attempted to flee but was apprehended. After seizing the pistol, another officer detected the odor of marijuana from the passenger side of the truck She opened the passenger-side door and found a backpack containing drugs and drug paraphernalia. Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute, reserving the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle.
On appeal, defendant argued that the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment because the officer's questions about his criminal history and travel plans were unrelated to the mission of the traffic stop and measurably extend edits duration. An officer's mission during a traffic stop is not limited to determining whether to issue a ticket. The criminal history questions were related to the mission of the stop because they helped to ensure the officer's safety. The Tenth Circuit did not address the merits of defendant's argument about the travel plan question because defendant did not show a factual nexus between the travel plan question and the discovery of drugs in his vehicle. Defendant thus failed to show that suppression of the evidence would be appropriate, even assuming a Fourth Amendment violation.
The judgment was affirmed.
No. 16-5156. United States v. Haymond.
8/31/2017. Judge Briscoe. Revocation of Supervised Release—Sufficiency of Evidence— Child Pornography—Sex Offender—28 USC § 3583(h)—Mandatory Minimum Sentence Based on Judge-Made Findings and Subsequent Conduct.
Probation officers found images of child pornography on defendant's cell phone and alleged that he violated his supervised release. The district court revoked defendant's supervised release based on his knowing possession of images of child pornography. It sentenced him to five years' re-incarceration under 18 USC § 3583(k), which requires a mandatory five-year minimum sentence on revocation where the offense involves possession of child pornography.
On appeal, defendant first argued there was insufficient evidence to support the revocation. The Tenth Circuit concluded that defendant more likely than not...
To continue reading
Request your trial