On May 24, 2023, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. Apache Young[i], which serves as an excellent review of the law related to reasonable suspicion and investigative detentions.  This article is a two part series in which the second issue will be discussed herein; the first issue was discussed in Part One.

The facts of Young are as follows:

The West Mesa is an open space area west of Albuquerque, New Mexico. According to local law enforcement, the West Mesa is known for criminal activity, including drug distribution and abandoned stolen vehicles. On November 13, 2016, Officer Jason Harvey of the Albuquerque Police Open Space Division was on patrol in the West Mesa—an area he had experience patrolling since 2002. It was about sixty-degrees Fahrenheit that day. Around 2 P.M., Officer Harvey spotted a red pickup truck, parked about a half-mile away. The driver’s side door was open. Officer Harvey saw no one near the truck. The scene roused Officer Harvey’s curiosity. Based on his experience, when a car or truck is parked on the West Mesa with its doors open, the hood up, or the wheels off, these “are indicators that potentially [the vehicle is] stolen.” Supp. App. at 56; App. vol. I at 145. Officer Harvey waited for his partner, Officer Pat Smith, to arrive before the two drove together towards the pickup truck.

When they were about 100 yards from the truck, Officer Harvey observed a man, later identified as Mr. Young, walk out of a nearby abandoned cattle water tank. Mr. Young was wearing pants, but no shirt, and he had blue tattoos on his torso. Officer Harvey also saw Mr. Young carrying what he believed was a handgun in a black holster. When Mr. Young reached the pickup, he placed the object on the left side of the truck bed and approached the officers.

Both officers walked toward Mr. Young, meeting him halfway between their respective vehicles. Officer Harvey asked Mr. Young what he was doing on the West Mesa and if there were “any guns or weapons we need to know about.” Mr. Young responded, “No, sir.” App. vol. I at 148; Supp. App. at 71; Video 1 at 0:54-0:57. Officer Harvey then asked Mr. Young, “Do you have any weapons on you.” App. vol. I at 148; Video 1 at 0:57-0:59. Mr. Young answered, “a pocketknife,” which he retrieved from his pants. App. vol. I at 148; Video 1 at 0:59. Reaching for the pocketknife, Officer Harvey said, “Let me just hold on to that for a second while we check everything out” and told Mr. Young, “Just hang out tight right here, okay?” App. vol. I at 148; Video 1 at 1:00-1:07.

Officer Harvey walked to the pickup truck, leaving Mr. Young with Officer Smith. Officer Harvey first looked in the truck bed, which was full of an assortment of objects. He called in the license plate number on his radio and learned the truck was registered to Andy Baca.

Officer Harvey then walked to the cattle water tank “looking for anything that was not consistent with the rest of the surroundings.” Supp. App. at 74. Inside the water tank, Officer Harvey observed “clear fluid,” blood, and fecal matter. App. vol. I at 149.

After inspecting the water tank, Officer Harvey returned to the truck, where he spotted “the butt of the gun, the grip of it” in the truck bed. Id. At this point, Dispatch had confirmed the vehicle was not stolen. Although “it didn’t look like any narcotics activity was occurring” Officer Harvey said he “needed to run the individual, just to make sure everything was good to go.” Supp. App. at 78.

Officer Harvey then walked back to where Officer Smith was waiting with Mr. Young. Officer Smith asked for Mr. Young’s full name, birthday, and Social Security number. When Officer Harvey asked who owned the truck, Mr. Young replied, “Andy Baca.” App. vol. I at 149-50.

Officer Harvey returned to his squad car, while Officer Smith waited with Mr. Young. Officer Harvey first phoned his supervisor, Sergeant Jeremy Bassett. He described his encounter with Mr. Young and reported seeing a firearm in the truck bed. He also explained what he had seen in the water tank. Sergeant Bassett asked if Mr. Young was a felon, and Officer Harvey answered, “I’m going to guess he is. He’s covered in tats like he is.” App. vol. I at 150; Video 2 at 9:08-9:13.

Officer Harvey then radioed Dispatch to check for warrants on Mr. Young. Dispatch found no outstanding warrants but identified that Mr. Young was on “a discharge status under probation [or] parole.” App. vol. I at 150; Video 2 at 18:03-18:18. Dispatch could not confirm the nature of Mr. Young’s underlying offense. Officer Harvey called Sandra Perea at the Probation and Parole Division of the New Mexico Corrections Department; she confirmed Mr. Young had a prior felony conviction.

Officer Harvey then arrested Mr. Young. About 35-40 minutes had elapsed since law enforcement first stopped Mr. Young. Later, after obtaining a warrant, law enforcement searched Mr. Young’s truck and found a rifle, shotgun, and ammunition, along with the handgun Officer Harvey had seen during the encounter.[ii]

Young was subsequently charged with weapons violations under federal law.  He filed a motion to suppress and argued (1) that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop and (2) that the officers exceeded the permissible scope of the detention.  The district court denied the motion.  Young was convicted by a jury and later appealed the denial of his motion to suppress.

On appeal, Young again argued that (1) the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him, and (2) the officers exceeded the permissible scope of the stop.

The first issue, particularly whether the officers had sufficient reasonable suspicion to detain Young was discussed in Part One of this series.

Here, we will examine the second issue, particularly whether the officers exceeded the scope of the stop.

The court of appeals first noted several legal principles relevant to this issue, which were as follows:

The court of appeals first noted that the district court, in its opinion, stated it was clear the officer could detain Young long enough to verify if the truck was stolen and if Young had any outstanding warrants.  The primary issue is whether it violated the Fourth Amendment to continue to detain Young to determine if he was a convicted felon.

Young argued on appeal that the length of time of the investigatory detention was not reasonable.  As noted in the facts, the detention lasted approximately 35-40 minutes.  Young argued that as soon as the officer learned the truck was not stolen he should have been released.

The court of appeals disagreed.  First, the court stated

Officer Harvey did not unreasonably prolong the length of the investigatory detention by calling Dispatch to check for outstanding warrants after learning the truck was not stolen. As the district court correctly explained, “police officers may check to see whether a detainee is a wanted person, irrespective of circumstances of that detention.” We have previously held an officer “was justified in performing a warrants check even in the absence of objective safety concerns because he was entitled to determine whether any of the detainees were evading justice.” United States v. Burleson, 657 F.3d 1040, 1051 (10th Cir. 2011). [ix]

The court of appeals noted that the totality of the circumstances of the initial detention provided sufficient reason to detain Young to determine if he was a convicted felon.  Particularly, the court stated

Officer Harvey observed “a man drop a firearm into a cluttered pickup truck bed and walk away from the truck moments after spotting the police officers.” These factors, the district court reasoned, could prompt Officer Harvey to “reasonably wonder whether [Mr.] Young had a particular reason to want to not be caught by the police with a firearm.[x]

It is also important to note that, before Officer Harvey learned that the truck was not stolen, Young had already lied to him about not having any guns.  Harvey saw him drop a gun in the bed of the truck and then asked him if he had any guns prior to learning the truck was not stolen.  This provided the officer with a reasonable belief that there must be some reason that Young did not want to be caught in possession of a firearm.  The court explained

[B]efore Officer Harvey learned about the status of the truck, Mr. Young claimed he had no guns in his possession. But when Officer Harvey inspected the vehicle moments later, he spotted the butt of a gun in the truck bed. Thus, when Mr. Young contends he was free to go, Officer Harvey already knew Mr. Young had lied to law enforcement about having a gun. Under the circumstances, the lie gave Officer Harvey an additional basis for looking into Mr. Young’s criminal history. Once Officer Harvey learned Mr. Young was on discharge status, he had further reason to suspect Mr. Young was in illegal possession of a firearm. Contrary to Mr. Young’s assertion, there was a basis for continuing to detain him after the truck was confirmed not stolen—to check for warrants and to investigate the legality of Mr. Young’s gun possession—and the more Officer Harvey learned during the detention, the more reason he had to be suspicious that criminal activity was afoot.[xi]

Lastly, the court of appeals considered the length of time of the detention, which was 35-40 minutes.  The court stated

The key inquiry for Fourth Amendment purposes is not simply how much time elapses but what law enforcement is doing during the suspect’s detention.[xii]

In other words, the officer must be diligently pursuing the investigation.  In this case, the officers first questioned Young.  Then, Officer Harvey checked the vehicle and the surrounding area, to include the water tank.  Next, he obtained Young’s personal information to conduct a warrant check through dispatch.  When Officer Harvey learned of Young’s discharge status, he then called the New Mexico Probation and Parole office to determine if Young was a convicted felon.

The court of appeals then held

While all this took some time, there was no interruption or undue delay in the investigative process. On this record, we have no reason to conclude Officer Harvey failed to diligently pursue the mission of the stop.[xiii]

As such the court of appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, as the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and the investigation was conducted within the proper scope of the stop.

Note:  Court holdings can vary significantly between jurisdictions.  As such, it is advisable to seek the advice of a local prosecutor or legal adviser regarding questions on specific cases.  This article is not intended to constitute legal advice on a specific case.

_______________________________________________

Citations

[i] No. 21-2066 (10th Cir. Decided May 24, 2023 Unpublished)

[ii] Id. at 2-5

[iii] Id. at 20 (emphasis added)

[iv] Id. (emphasis added)

[v] Id. (emphasis added)

[vi] Id. at 22 (emphasis added)

[vii] Id. (emphasis added)

[viii] Id. (emphasis added)

[ix] Id. at 23 (emphasis added)

[x] Id.

[xi] Id. at 24

[xii] Id. at 25 (emphasis added)

[xiii] Id.