Youngstown Daily Legal News

Court rules traffic stop done with reasonable suspicion

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: June 26, 2013

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals released a decision recently in which it affirmed the conviction and sentence of Herald Alexander for being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Alexander was convicted and sentenced to five years and 10 months in prison and he appealed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to deny his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search of his vehicle and the length of his sentence.

The case arose out of activity that took place on Oct. 8, 2010 when Cincinnati Police Officers Heather Saidler, Jason Rice and Kevin Butler investigated a complaint of drug activity at a Cincinnati gas station.

Saidler and Rice, plainclothes officers in an unmarked vehicle, were parked near the gas station to observe the alleged drug activity.

They communicated with Butler, a uniformed officer parked a block away in a police cruiser.

According to case history, a car drew the attention of the officers when it parked at one of the gas pumps but the driver, Alexander, did not purchase any gas.

The officers testified they observed “what appeared to be two hand-to-hand drug transactions where an individual would walk up to the driver’s side of the car, exchange something with Alexander and then walk away.”

After each exchange, Alexander went to the trunk of his car and “appeared to either retrieve something from, or drop something off, in the driver-side area of the trunk.”

Following the second exchange, Alexander drove away from the gas station. Saidler noticed the vehicle’s license plate light was not working and contacted Butler to let him know about the light and the suspected drug activity.

Butler conducted a traffic stop and Rice requested a drug-detection dog.

Police found crack cocaine wrapped in foil, a digital scale and a loaded 9-millimeter handgun.

During trial, Alexander moved to have the evidence obtained during the search suppressed because it was his view that the police obtained it after an unlawful traffic stop.

At the suppression hearing, Alexander’s mother testified the license plate light was working properly both when Alexander dropped her off home on the evening of his arrest and when she retrieved the car from the impound lot the next day. However, the district court denied the motion.

Alexander pleaded guilty to possession of a gun as a convicted felon and preserved his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motions.

His plea agreement contained a waiver which provided, “The defendant waives all rights to appeal the sentence imposed except for the ground that the sentence exceeds the maximum advisory Sentencing Guideline range as determined by the court or the statutory minimum penalty.”

The district court determined Alexander’s offense level to be a 23 and a criminal history category of four, which resulted in a maximum advisory Sentencing Guideline range of 70-80 months.

Alexander was sentenced to 70 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release.

Judge Boyce Martin wrote the decision on behalf of the circuit court’s three-judge appellate panel in which he addressed Alexander’s claims that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence found in what, by his view, was an unlawful stop of his vehicle.

Martin wrote, “A police officer may lawfully stop a car when he or she either has probable cause to believe that a civil traffic violation has occurred or a reasonable suspicion of an ongoing crime.”

Alexander relied on his mother’s testimony to show that there was contradictory evidence as to whether his license plate light was working and that Butler did not have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation had occurred.

“Although Alexander’s mother testified that the light was working when Alexander left home on the evening of the traffic stop and when she picked the car up from the impound lot the next morning, she was not able to answer whether the light was working at the time of the traffic stop because she was not there,” the appellate panel held.

Alexander’s mother claimed there were several people who could corroborate her story, however no other witnesses were presented during the suppression hearing.

In regard to Alexander’s claims that the officers did not have enough evidence to suspect an ongoing crime, Martin stated, “Several facts support the government’s argument that Officers Saidler and Rice had a reasonable suspicion of drug activity.”

The court of appeals held that, in deference to their special training, due weight was to be given to the inferences of the officers when they observed what they believed to be hand-to-hand drug transactions.

“Hand-to-hand transactions consistent with drug transactions are ‘highly probative’ in evaluating reasonable suspicion,” wrote Martin.

Coupled with the fact that Alexander never purchased any gas or other items at the station, the appellate panel determined that the specific facts supported the district court’s finding that Butler had a reasonable suspicion of drug activity that justified the traffic stop.

Likewise, the court found that Alexander’s 70-month sentence did not exceed the maximum advisory Sentencing Guideline range and was therefore, barred from appeal because of the stipulation contained in his plea agreement.

The district court’s judgment and sentence were affirmed.

Judges Jeffrey Sutton and John Adams, sitting by designation, concurred.

The case is cited United States v. Alexander, Case No. 12-3436.

[Back]