Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Unlawful-stop Claim – Reasonable Suspicion – Suppress of Evidence

By: Derek Hawkins//March 8, 2022//

Unlawful-stop Claim – Reasonable Suspicion – Suppress of Evidence

By: Derek Hawkins//March 8, 2022//

Listen to this article

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Janhoi Cole

Case No.: 20-2105

Officials: SYKES, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK, KANNE, ROVNER, WOOD, HAMILTON, BRENNAN, SCUDDER, ST. EVE, and KIRSCH, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Unlawful-stop Claim – Reasonable Suspicion – Suppress of Evidence

An Illinois state trooper stopped Janhoi Cole for following too closely behind another car. At the time, Cole was traveling on an Illinois interstate with an Arizona driver’s license and a California registration. During the brief roadside detention that followed, the trooper questioned Cole about his license, registration, and travel plans. Cole’s answers struck the trooper as evasive, inconsistent, and improbable. Many of the trooper’s questions were follow-up questions to Cole’s answers and volunteered information. Combined with other factors, they led the trooper to suspect that Cole was trafficking drugs. To investigate his suspicions, the trooper called for a K-9 unit to meet him and Cole at a nearby gas station. The dog alerted, and officers found large quantities of methamphetamine and heroin in Cole’s car.

Facing federal charges, Cole moved to suppress the drugs as well as his statements during the stop. He argued that the trooper unlawfully initiated the stop and unreasonably prolonged it without reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity. The district court denied the motion, but a divided panel of this Court reversed on the basis that the trooper’s initial roadside questioning unreasonably prolonged the traffic stop. We reheard the case en banc to resolve an apparent conflict between the panel’s decision and United States v. Lewis, 920 F.3d 483 (7th Cir. 2019), as to whether travel-plan questions are part of the “mission” of a traffic stop under Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015).

In keeping with Lewis and the consensus of other circuits, we hold that travel-plan questions ordinarily fall within the mission of a traffic stop. Travel-plan questions, however, like other police inquiries during a traffic stop, must be reasonable under the circumstances. And here they were. The trooper inquired about the basic details of Cole’s travel, and his follow-up questions were justified given Cole’s less-than-forthright answers. The stop itself was lawfully initiated, and the trooper developed reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity before moving the initial stop to the gas station for the dog sniff. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of Cole’s motion to suppress.

Affirmed
Full Text


Derek A Hawkins is Corporate Counsel, at Salesforce.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests