FIRST CIRCUIT FINDS SEARCH OF AUTOMOBILE PASSENGER LEGAL

The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a ruling by the District Court suppressing evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds and upheld a search by a Hooksett, New Hampshire police officer.

Officer Aaron Brown of the Hooksett, New Hampshire Police Department pulled over a vehicle driven by Renee LaFontaine for having a burned out headlight. After informing LaFontaine of the reason he pulled her over, Brown questioned Vincent Chaney who was in the right front seat. He asked Chaney for his ID. Chaney said he did not have it with him. (He wasn’t driving so he did not need his ID.) Chaney was not sure what jurisdiction issued the ID. Chaney gave his name as Jacob Williams. Chaney was unable to provide his Social Security number or his current address. Brown was unable to verify Chaney’s information on his radio. It took approximately five minutes to do the records check for Chaney. Brown then interviewed LaFontaine and Chaney separately. He did not learn much but he saw a bulge in Chaney’s pocket which he thought might be a weapon. Chaney was evasive about the contents of his pocket. He handcuffed Chaney and pat searched him. He found a pouch with a gun in it. Chaney was charged with being a felon in possession of a gun.

The District Court granted his motion to suppress the evidence on Fourth Amendment Grounds and the First Circuit reversed.

Citing Supreme Court precedent, The Court ruled that

“[d]uring an otherwise valid traffic stop, ‘an officer’s inquiries into matters unrelated to the justification for the traffic stop, the Supreme Court has made plain, do not convert the encounter into something other than a lawful seizure, so long as those inquiries do not measurably extend the duration of the stop.’ Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S.Ct. 781, 788 (2009).”

The appellate court ruled that once Chaney said he did not know what jurisdiction issued his ID, the officer had a reasonable suspicion of wrong doing and could continue the detention. Furthermore, the bulge in the pocket gave the officer the right to pat search Chaney for officer safety reasons. Since Chaney’s statement that he did not know what jurisdiction issued the ID came shortly after the car was stopped, the limited period of time prior to Chaney’s statement did not overly extend the stop and did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

PS I know nothing about Chaney and LaFontaine besides what I’ve written, above, but I’m willing to bet that Chaney is African-American. How do I know. An officer would not question or search a passenger in a car unless he is African- American or unless the people in the car are mixed race. Any takers?