United States v. Teresa Miller

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4086 Doc: 83 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 1 of 20
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4086
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TERESA MILLER,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cr-00041-IMK-MJA-1)
Argued: October 28, 2022 Decided: November 29, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, conviction and sentence vacated, and remanded by published
opinion. Chief Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Judge Agee and Judge Diaz joined.
ARGUED: Jenny R. Thoma, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:
Hilary L. Godwin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Katy J. Cimino, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Clarksburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Randolph J. Bernard, Acting United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4086 Doc: 83 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 2 of 20
GREGORY, Chief Judge:
Teresa Miller was indicted on one count of unlawfully possessing a firearm in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The firearms at issue were uncovered during a traffic
stop. Miller was traveling in the backseat of a vehicle operated by Jessica Phillips when the
vehicle was stopped by Officer Helms for having an inoperable taillight. After printing a
warning citation for Phillips, Officer Helms used his canine to sniff around the vehicle, and
then conducted a full search when the dog alerted, uncovering two firearms in Miller’s
backpack. The district court denied Miller’s motion to suppress evidence of the firearms,
concluding that Officer Helms had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop and conduct the
search. Following a bench trial, Miller was convicted of one count of unlawfully
possessing a firearm.
On appeal, Miller argues that the district court erred by (1) denying her motion to
transfer the proceedings to another district pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
21(a) and (2) finding that Officer Helms had reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop.
We hold that (1) Miller’s motion to transfer was appropriately denied and (2) Officer
Helms lacked a reasonable, articulable factual basis for extending the traffic stop to conduct
the dog sniff. 1 We therefore reverse the district court’s order denying Miller’s motion to
suppress, vacate Miller’s conviction and sentence, and remand to the district court for
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
1
There is no dispute that once the dog alerted on the vehicle, Officer Helms had
probable cause to conduct a full search.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4086 Doc: 83 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 3 of 20
I.
On July 3, 2018, Officer Helms, who conducts surveillance with a canine, stopped a
vehicle driven by Phillips for having an inoperable taillight. See Supplemental J.A. Volume
I (“S.J.A. I”); see also J.A. 109. 2 Officer Helms’s dashboard camera captured footage of the
traffic stop. The footage begins roughly thirty-one seconds before Officer Helms turned on
his lights to pull Phillips over. Supplemental J.A. Volume II (“S.J.A. II”) at 00:00-00:31. 3
When Officer Helms turned on his lights, Phillips’s vehicle was essentially parallel with a
turn lane that led to a well-lit parking lot. Id. at 00:31. Phillips hit her brakes just four
seconds after Officer Helms’s lights came on and activated her blinker three seconds after
hitting her brakes. Id. at 00:35-00:38. Phillips came to a complete stop seventeen seconds
after Officer Helms turned his lights on. Id. at 00:48.
After Phillips came to a stop, Officer Helms approached the driver’s side of the
vehicle. His body camera captured his exchange with Phillips. Shortly after Officer Helms
approached Phillips’s vehicle, she began searching for her license. S.J.A. I 00:00-00:30.
While Officer Helms testified that Phillips’s hands were shaking during the encounter, her
hands did not appear to be shaking while she was handing Officer Helms her license or her
2
While Officer Helms stated that the stop occurred on July 4, the stop was instituted
approximately ten minutes before midnight on July 3, as shown by the body camera
footage. The search, however, began on July 4. See S.J.A. I at 08:00.
3
Two days before oral argument, Miller submitted a motion to file a supplemental
appendix containing the dashboard camera footage. The footage is considered a part of the
record on appeal because it was a part of the record at the district court. See Fed. R. App. P.
30(a)(1). Although the footage need not be included as an appendix, the motion is granted.
See Fed. R. App. P. 30(a)(2).
3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4086 Doc: 83 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 4 of 20
insurance information. See id. at 00:28-00:32, 00:35-00:40; J.A. 117. 4 The next time that
Phillips’s hands were in view, it still was not evident that she was shaking. Id. at 01:11-
01:18, 01:25-01:32.
While Phillips was looking for the vehicle’s registration card, she noted that the
vehicle was not very organized and, as a result, she was struggling to locate the card. Id.
at 00:45-01:35. Phillips stated that she had seen the registration card earlier that day
because she used it at the Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”). Id. at 00:58-01:01.
Officer Helms then asked Phillips if “everything [was] good with her license,” to which
she replied “yeah,” and then noted that she had renewed her license at the DMV earlier that
day and had to wait three hours to do so. Id. at 01:01-01:09. Officer Helms responded,
“ah, that’s always awesome.” Id. at 01:08-01:11. While continuing to search for the
registration card, Phillips continued the conversation, saying that “it took [her] three hours
and twenty minutes to renew [her] license.” Id. at 01:14-01:20. Officer Helms responded
by laughing and saying, “that’s always pleasant.” Id. Expanding on her unpleasant DMV
experience, Phillips stated that she had to supervise her three grandchildren while at the
DMV. Id. at 01:21-01:25. Officer Helms then said, “if everything is good, I’m just going
to cut you a warning.” Id. at 01:34-01:37. Phillips thanked him. Id. at 01:38-01:40.
Officer Helms returned to his car just one minute and fifty seconds after he initially
approached Phillips’s vehicle. Id. at 01:50.
4
Officer Helms held the insurance paper in front of his body camera for a prolonged
period of time, obstructing the body camera’s view of Phillips. S.J.A. I at 00:45-01:23.
4
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4086 Doc: 83 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 5 of 20
When a backup officer arrived, 5 Officer Helms told him that he was suspicious of
the vehicle’s occupants because Phillips was shaking and tapping on the car door. Id. at
07:15-07:50. At approximately the same time, Officer Helms printed Phillips’s warning
ticket. Id. at 07:15. Soon thereafter, Officer Helms approached Phillips’s vehicle, asked
Phillips to exit the vehicle, and told her he would be leading his canine around the vehicle
to sniff for illegal drugs. Id. at 08:25. After the canine indicated that there were drugs in
the vehicle, officers performed a full search. Id. at 12:00-12:15. During the search, they
located two handguns in Miller’s backpack. J.A. 127.
In July 2019, Miller was indicted in the Northern District of West Virginia for
unlawfully possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). J.A.
15–16. Acting pro se, Miller filed a motion to transfer her case to another district because
multiple civil suits she had previously filed in the Northern District of West Virginia—which
named judges sitting in that district as defendants—had been transferred to the Southern
District of West Virginia due to a conflict of interest. J.A. 17–19; see Miller v. Gaujot, No.
2:16-CV-50 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 6, 2017); Miller v. Gaujot, No. 1:17-CV-128 (N.D.W. Va.
Sep. 5, 2017). The district court denied the motion because defense counsel, who was
appointed just two days after Miller filed the motion, refused to adopt it. J.A. 24–27. 6
5
Officer Helms testified that it is standard procedure for officers to provide backup
during night shift traffic stops. J.A. 170.
6
The district court addressed the issue again at sentencing and stated that the civil
cases had to be transferred because they created a conflict of interest between the judges
sitting in that district. J.A. 302.
5
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4086 Doc: 83 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 6 of 20
Miller later filed a motion to suppress evidence of the firearms, arguing that the
extension of the stop to conduct the dog sniff violated the Fourth Amendment. J.A. 33–
34. A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion. The district court adopted the
majority of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, 7 including its ultimate
recommendation to deny Miller’s motion to suppress. J.A. 72–73. The district court held
that the magistrate judge properly (1) considered Officer Helms’s experience and training;
(2) determined that Phillips was excessively nervous; and (3) concluded that Phillips was
slow to pull over. J.A. 83–91. 8
Regarding Phillips’s alleged nervousness, the district court stated that while the
body camera footage was not clear enough to see whether Phillips was shaking, she
exhibited nervous behavior by sharing unnecessary details of her day, her nervousness did
not subside after she was told she would receive a warning if her license was clean, and
tapping her fingers on the car door constituted excessively nervous behavior. J.A. 86–88.
Further, the district court noted that Phillips “was slow to pull over and passed at least one
or two well-lit streets and parking lots in favor of a dimly-lit section of Route 7.” J.A. 88–
90. In considering whether Phillips was slow to stop, the district court found it significant
that Phillips would have travelled roughly 100 yards if traveling at 35 miles per hour for
7
The district court rejected only one portion of the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, which considered the passengers’ lack of eye contact when analyzing
whether Officer Helms had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. J.A. 91.
8
The district court only considered evidence arising before Officer Helms printed
the warning ticket, which occurred approximately seven-and-a-half minutes after the
initial stop. J.A. 82; S.J.A. I at 07:10.
6
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4086 Doc: 83 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 7 of 20
six seconds. J.A. 90. 9 Finally, the district court noted that Route 7 was a known drug
corridor. J.A. 91. These factors, it concluded, were enough to establish reasonable
suspicion for Officer Helms to extend the traffic stop. J.A. 92.
II.
We first address Miller’s argument that the district court erred by refusing to transfer
her case to another district. We conclude that the district court did not so err.
A.
We consider Miller’s appeal from the district court’s order denying her motion to
transfer pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(a). Notably, the Government
interprets Miller’s motion to be for recusal rather than transfer. But regardless of whether Miller
moved for transfer or recusal, we review for abuse of discretion. See Scott v. United States, 255
F.2d 18, 20 (4th Cir. 1958); United States v. Whorley, 550 F.3d 326, 339 (4th Cir. 2008).
B.
Miller filed a pro se motion to transfer under Rule 21(a), which states that “the court
must transfer the proceeding against [the] defendant to another district if the court is
satisfied that so great a prejudice against the defendant exists in the transferring district that
the defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial there.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 21(a). Miller
filed the motion just two days before being appointed counsel, and counsel subsequently
refused to adopt the motion. J.A. 17–19, 46–26. The district court declined to consider the
The district court did not further explain why the distance that Phillips travelled
9
was more important than the time it took for her to come to a complete stop.
7
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4086 Doc: 83 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 8 of 20
motion, reasoning that every circuit court to address the issue has held that a district court
has no obligation to consider a pro se motion filed by a represented party. J.A. 24–25.
Miller argues that this case should have been transferred to the Southern District of
West Virginia because the civil cases she had filed in the Northern District had been
transferred due to a conflict of interest. Tellingly, Miller’s appellate counsel does not appear
to support this argument. Brief of Appellant at 12 (stating that “Counsel’s research into this
issue does not appear to offer relief; however, as the issue was preserved below, Miller
respectfully requests this Court consider Miller’s argument and whether it has merit.”).
The Government characterizes Miller’s motion as a motion for recusal rather than
transfer and argues that, because the civil cases are unrelated to this criminal action, they
do not bring the district court’s impartiality into question.
Under either standard, the district court did not have to transfer this case because
Rule 21(a) addresses juror, rather than judicial, prejudice, and the district judge was not
otherwise required to recuse herself.
It is quite clear that district courts are “not require[d] . . . to permit ‘hybrid’
representation,” which occurs when a person is represented by counsel but still seeks to act
as her own attorney, during a court hearing or jury trial. McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S.
168, 183 (1984). This Court has echoed this view, albeit in an unpublished opinion, with
regard to written motions. See United States v. Barnes, 358 F. App’x 412, 413 (4th Cir.
8
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4086 Doc: 83 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 9 of 20
2009). 10 As the district court correctly noted, other circuits agree that a defendant has no
right to hybrid representation for written motions. See, e.g., Clark v. Perez, 510 F.3d 382,
395 (2d Cir. 2008); Myers v. Johnson, 76 F.3d 1330, 1335 (5th Cir. 1996); United States
v. Hill, 526 F.2d 1019, 1024 (10th Cir. 1975).
The question here is whether the district court must consider a pro se motion filed
before the defendant is appointed counsel and counsel refuses to adopt the motion once
appointed. No circuit seems to have passed judgment on this precise issue. We need not
resolve that question here, because Miller’s motion fails on the merits.
Rule 21(a) is commonly invoked when pre-trial publicity could taint the jury pool,
which indicates that the rule is designed to prevent juror, rather than judicial, prejudice.
See, e.g., United States v. Higgs, 353 F.3d 281, 307–08 (4th Cir. 2003); United States v.
Langford, 647 F.3d 1309, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011); United States v. Skelos, 988 F.3d 645,
659 (2d Cir. 2021). Note 4 of the 1944 Advisory Committee Notes on Rule 21(a) states
that the Rule applies “in addition to and does not supersede existing statutes enabling a
party to secure a change of judge on the ground of personal bias or prejudice.”
Additionally, Note 1 of the 1944 Advisory Committee Notes states that Rules 21(a) and
(b) provide a new right for defendants to move for a change of venue based on the “public
feeling in the vicinity of the crime [that] may render impossible a fair and impartial trial.”
Therefore, Rule 21(a) appears to be concerned with juror, rather than judicial, prejudice.
10
Similarly, a litigant may not “raise substantive motions while [she] is represented
by counsel” in this Court. United States v. Washington, 743 F.3d 938, 941 n.1 (4th Cir.
2014) (internal quotations omitted).
9
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4086 Doc: 83 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 10 of 20
Thus, Miller’s motion for transfer should have been brought as a motion for recusal and
was properly denied.
Even if Miller’s motion is treated as a motion for recusal, as the Government seems
to believe, it would still fail. Miller overstates the possibility that her prior civil suits would
threaten the impartiality of judicial proceedings. As the district court explained, the civil
cases had to be transferred out of the Northern District of West Virginia because they
named judges sitting in that district as defendants, thereby creating a conflict. J.A. 302.
There is no such conflict in Miller’s criminal case. The judge in her criminal case
was not named as a defendant in the civil cases, so any relation between the civil and
criminal cases is too attenuated to warrant recusal. Miller has made no showing that the
district judge has personal bias against her, and she cannot point to any evidence of
partiality. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) (stating that a judge should recuse herself if her
“impartiality might reasonably be questioned”); 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1) (stating that a judge
should recuse herself where she “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party”).
Accordingly, the district court properly denied Miller’s motion for transfer.
III.
A.
“In considering the district court’s suppression decision, we review legal
determinations de novo and the [district] court’s underlying factual findings for clear
error.” United States v. Thomas, 908 F.3d 68, 72 (4th Cir. 2018). We construe the facts in
the Government’s favor. United States v. Brinkley, 980 F3d 377, 383 (4th Cir. 2020).
10
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4086 Doc: 83 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 11 of 20
The standard governing traffic stops under the Fourth Amendment is well-
established in this Circuit. Traffic stops are “subject to the reasonableness requirement of
the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Bowman, 884 F.3d 200, 209 (4th Cir. 2018).
The standard the Supreme Court articulated in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), applies to
traffic stops because they are investigatory stops rather than custodial arrests. Bowman,
884 F.3d at 209. Accordingly, we ask “(1) if the stop was legitimate at its inception, and
(2) if the officer’s actions during the seizure were reasonably related in scope to the basis
for the traffic stop.” Id. (cleaned up). For the initial stop to be reasonable, the officer must
have probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred. Id. However, a traffic stop that
was reasonable at its inception can violate the Fourth Amendment when an officer extends
the stop beyond the “‘time reasonably required to complete [the] mission’ of issuing a
warning ticket.” Id. at 209–10 (quoting Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005)
(brackets in original)). Even a de minimis extension violates the Fourth Amendment. Id.
at 210. In order to extend a traffic stop beyond what is necessary to effectuate its original
purpose, the officer must possess reasonable suspicion. Id.
“A dog sniff around [a] vehicle’s perimeter for the purpose of detecting narcotics
‘is not an ordinary incident of a traffic stop.’” Id. (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 575
U.S. 348, 356 (2015)). However, the officer may “conduct an investigation unrelated to
the reasons for the traffic stop as long as it ‘[does] not lengthen the roadside detention.’”
Id. (quoting Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 354) (brackets and emphasis in original). Thus, a
canine sniff that is unrelated to the purpose of the original stop is lawful only if it does not
extend the traffic stop or is based on reasonable suspicion. See id. at 209.
11
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4086 Doc: 83 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 12 of 20
Reasonable suspicion “require[s] something more than an ‘inchoate and
unparticularized suspicion or hunch.’” United States v. Sprinkle, 106 F.3d 613, 617 (4th Cir.
1997) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 27). Indeed, “an officer and the Government must do more
than simply label a behavior as ‘suspicious’ to make it so.” United States v. Foster, 634 F.3d
243, 248 (4th Cir. 2011). That said, the reasonable suspicion standard is not mechanical;
rather, it “entails common sense, nontechnical conceptions that deal with factual and
practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent [people], not legal
technicians, act.” United States v. Foreman, 369 F.3d 776, 781 (4th Cir. 2004).
To support reasonable suspicion, an officer must put forth “specific and articulable
facts that demonstrate at least a minimal level of objective justification for the belief that
criminal activity is afoot.” Bowman, 884 F.3d at 213 (internal quotations omitted). The
Government may not rely on post hoc rationalizations to explain a search—rather, the
officer must have had a reasonable suspicion at the time the search was conducted. See
United States v. Digiovanni, 650 F.3d 498, 511–12 (4th Cir. 2011), abrogated in part on
other grounds by Rodriguez, 575 U.S. 348. Accordingly, we consider only those facts
known to the officer at the time of the search. See id.When assessing whether reasonable suspicion existed, we view the evidence in its
totality, while remaining “mindful of the practical experience of officers who observe on a
daily basis what transpires on the street.” Bowman, 884 F.3d at 214 (internal quotations
omitted). However, we address each factor individually before evaluating them together.
Id. Critically, the facts “must in their totality serve to eliminate a substantial portion of
innocent travelers.” Id. at 213 (internal quotations omitted).
12
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4086 Doc: 83 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 13 of 20
One relevant factor in the reasonable suspicion inquiry is whether a driver was
excessively nervous during the stop. Id. at 214. In analyzing this factor, we have
considered, inter alia, whether the driver was fidgeting, shaking, or talking nervously. See
id.; United States v. Vaughan, 700 F.3d 705, 711 (4th Cir. 2012). But “[a]s this court has
recognized on multiple occasions, a driver’s nervousness is not a particularly good
indicator of criminal activity, because most everyone is nervous when interacting with the
police.” Bowman, 884 F.3d at 214 (internal quotations omitted). The suspect’s
nervousness must therefore be unusual, beyond the norm, or evasive. Id.; United States v.
Massenburg, 654 F.3d 480, 490 (4th Cir. 2011). Therefore, “absent signs of nervousness
beyond the norm, we will discount the detaining officer’s reliance on the detainee’s
nervousness as a basis for reasonable suspicion.” Bowman, 884 F.3d at 214 (quoting
Massenburg, 654 F.3d at 490). In determining whether a person was excessively nervous,
it is relevant whether their nervousness subsided or increased after the initial stop because
an innocent person’s nerves tend to decrease as the traffic stop progresses. See Bowman,
884 F.3d at 214–15; Vaughan, 700 F.3d at 711.
Other relevant factors include the road the driver was traveling on and the length of
time it took the driver to pull over. See United States v. Mason, 628 F.3d 123, 128–29 (4th
Cir. 2010); United States v. Williams, 808 F.3d 238, 248 (4th Cir. 2015). But the mere fact
that a person is traveling on a route commonly used to transport drugs, “standing alone, is
entitled to very little weight.” Williams, 808 F.3d at 247. We have observed that “the
number of persons using interstate highways as drug corridors pales in comparison to the
number of innocent travelers on those roads,” which makes it doubtful that the mere fact a
13
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4086 Doc: 83 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 14 of 20
person was traveling on such a road late at night “helps narrow the identification of
travelers to those involved in drug activity.” Williams, 808 F.3d at 247; see also United
States v. Villavicencio, 825 F. App’x 88, 98 (4th Cir. 2020).
Finally, when an officer’s testimony is clearly contradicted by video evidence, the court
should normally discount the testimonial statements. See Digiovanni, 650 F.3d at 512–13.
B.
To reiterate, the district court held that Officer Helms had reasonable suspicion to
extend the traffic stop because Phillips was (1) slow to pull over, (2) excessively nervous, and
(3) traveling on a known drug corridor. The district court gave great weight to Officer Helms’s
experience in its analysis. 11 It determined that Phillips was slow to pull over because she
“passed at least one or two well-lit streets and parking lots in favor of a dimly-lit section
of Route 7.” J.A. 89–90. It further found that Phillips was excessively nervous because
she was allegedly shaking during the traffic stop, talking excessively, and tapping her
fingers on the outside of her car door. The district court also found that Phillips’s
nervousness did not decrease after being told she would only receive a warning. Finally,
11
Officer Helms testified to having over fourteen years of law enforcement
experience with the Morgantown Police Department—including assignments to the
Department’s Street Crimes Unit and the Department’s Drug Task Force. J.A. 103–04.
Officer Helms noted that he had received training for drug interdiction that included
courses on how to spot deceptive behavior. J.A. 105. He also testified to having executed
more than 2,000 traffic stops throughout his career, with approximately 300 of those
occurring in 2018. J.A. 85, 106–07. Of those 300 stops in 2018, he said, more than 60
resulted in drug prosecutions. J.A. 106–07.
14
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4086 Doc: 83 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 15 of 20
the district court credited Officer Helms’s testimony that Route 7 was “a corridor
commonly used to traffic drugs between counties.” J.A. 91, 108.
Here, however, the video evidence does not support some of Officer Helms’s
statements and impressions. As we explain, the district court clearly erred by crediting
portions of Officer Helms’s testimony regarding whether Phillips was slow to stop and
excessively nervous. These erroneous findings of fact ultimately led the district court to
incorrectly find that Officer Helms possessed reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop.
1.
First, Phillips was not unduly slow to pull over. Phillips was even with the turn lane
when Officer Helms’s lights first came on. She hit her brakes four seconds after his lights
came on, activated her blinker three seconds after that, and stopped the vehicle a total of
seventeen seconds after Officer Helms first activated his lights. S.J.A. II at 00:31-00:48.
The district court nonetheless found that Phillips was slow to pull over and passed “at least
one or two well-lit streets and parking lots in favor of a dimly-lit section of Route 7.” J.A.
89–90. It also noted that the seventeen seconds it took Phillips to stop gave her an
opportunity to converse with her passengers about how to cover up criminal conduct. J.A.
89. Additionally, the district court found the distance the vehicle traveled in those seventeen
seconds (100 yards) was more important than the time it took for her to stop. J.A. 90.
We cannot agree. Just as officers are not required to complete a traffic stop as
quickly as humanly possible, drivers should not be required to pull over as quickly as
humanly possible—especially when a driver may need to continue driving for a slightly
longer amount of time to reach a safer stopping point—as long as the time it took to stop
15
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4086 Doc: 83 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 16 of 20
was reasonable. See United States v. Perez, 30 F.4th 369, 375–76 (4th Cir. 2022) (finding
that an officer’s search of a vehicle was proper despite it not being completed as quickly
as possible due to the officer’s reasonable safety precautions). Such a rule deters the
Government from transforming innocuous behavior—or, as found here, behavior that
enhances the safety of the driver, the officer, and others on the road—into evidence of
criminality. See Foster, 634 F.3d at 248 (expressing “concern about the inclination of the
Government toward using whatever facts are present, no matter how innocent, as indicia
of suspicious activity”).
Our analysis is necessarily fact-specific, and the ultimate touchstone is whether the
driver pulled over in a reasonable amount of time given the circumstances. Still, some
commonsense principles should guide the way. First, a driver should be given time to react
and be entitled to make certain that a hailing officer intends to pull them over rather than
simply pass them on the way to another emergency. Second, a driver should be given a
meaningful opportunity to reach a safe place to stop.
Here, the video evidence from Officer Helms’s dashboard camera shows that
Phillips stopped within a reasonable amount of time. Phillips could not have pulled into
the well-lit parking lot that Officer Helms intended her to because she was parallel with
the entrance when Officer Helms activated his lights. And contrary to the district court’s
findings, the video shows Phillips did not pass any other area, well-lit or otherwise, where
she could have safely stopped. There were no earlier exits, and the road did not have a
shoulder. Next, Phillips began braking just four seconds after Officer Helms turned his
lights on, indicating that she was in the process of stopping. Four seconds is a reasonable
16
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4086 Doc: 83 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 17 of 20
time for a person to react and determine that an officer intends to pull her over. While it
ultimately took Phillips thirteen seconds to come to a complete stop after first engaging her
brakes, she stopped at the first available place on the road where she could safely do so.
Under these facts, she came to a stop in a reasonable amount of time.
The fact that Officer Helms intended for Phillips to turn into the well-lit parking lot is
of little probative value because Phillips had no way of knowing Helms’s intention. Although
Officer Helms had extensive experience conducting traffic stops, Phillips did not. Thus, she
should not be expected to intuit the precise place Officer Helms wanted her to pull over.
Accordingly, the district court clearly erred by finding that Phillips was slow to pull over.
2.
Second, the body camera footage showed that Phillips was not excessively nervous
during the traffic stop. On that point, the footage of the stop depicts multiple instances
where Phillips’s hands can be seen. See S.J.A. I at 00:28-00:32, 00:35-00:40, 01:11-01:18,
01:25-01:32. While the district court is correct that the video does not show Phillips’s
hands the entire time, the video clarity is quite good, and shows that her hands were not
shaking. See id. Moreover, her hands can be seen both at the beginning of the encounter
and at the end, and the video footage shows that her demeanor did not change throughout
the conversation. Thus, the district court clearly erred by finding that Phillips was shaking
during the traffic stop.
The body camera footage also refutes Officer Helms’s testimony that Phillips was
nervously talking and sharing unnecessary details about her day. The footage shows that
Phillips was simply making related small talk and responding to the questions Officer Helms
17
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4086 Doc: 83 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 18 of 20
asked. For instance, while looking for the vehicle’s registration card, Phillips noted that
the car was not very organized, which was why she was struggling to find the card. Id. at
00:45-01:00. Phillips also stated that she had seen the registration card earlier in the day
because she had used it at the DMV. That point was directly relevant to the stop, given
that Officer Helms asked to see the card. Id. at 00:50-01:00. In context, it is clear that she
was simply explaining that she knew the card was somewhere in the car.
Phillips’s allegedly unrelated statement about her visit to the DMV was made in
response to Officer Helms asking her if “everything [was] good with [her] license.” Id. at
01:00-01:05; see J.A. 86. She responded by saying that she knew her license was “good”
because she had visited the DMV to renew it earlier that day. S.J.A. I at 01:05-01:30. The
allegedly “unnecessary details of her day” that Phillips shared were simply remarks about
how unpleasant her DMV experience was. Id.; see J.A. 87. In response to her comments
about the long wait time at the DMV and having to simultaneously watch her three
grandchildren, Officer Helms even chuckled and remarked, “that’s always pleasant.”
S.J.A. I at 01:15-01:20. It is hard to imagine why this exchange would arouse suspicions
of criminal behavior. The district court clearly erred by finding that Phillips was talking
excessively and that these statements were unrelated to the traffic stop.
Additionally, the district court found it “significant” that Phillips remained nervous
“despite having been told by Officer Helms that she would be free to go if her license came
back clean.” J.A. 87–88. The only (arguably) nervous behavior the Government can point
to after Officer Helms’s statement is Phillips tapping her fingers on the car door. But
tapping is not an indicator of excessive or sustained nervousness because it is completely
18
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4086 Doc: 83 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 19 of 20
consistent with law abiding behavior. Although fidgeting may certainly be a sign of
nervousness, Bowman, 884 F.3d at 214, tapping one’s fingers may just as likely be a sign
of annoyance, impatience, or even boredom—any of which may be expected when a person
is stopped by a police officer and is awaiting the results of a license check. By itself,
tapping one’s fingers is a very weak indicator of nervousness.
3.
Finally, the district court thought it relevant to the reasonable suspicion analysis that
Phillips was traveling on a known drug corridor.
But this Court has stated that traveling on a known drug corridor is not itself
probative of criminal behavior and does not serve to eliminate a substantial portion of
innocent travelers. See Williams, 808 F.3d at 247 (explaining that “the number of persons
using the interstate highways as drug corridors pales in comparison to the number of
innocent travelers on those roads” and stating that “we are not persuaded by the proposition
that traveling south on [a known drug corridor] late at night helps narrow the identification
of travelers to those involved in drug activity.”).
Considering the record as a whole, and even after accounting for Officer Helms’s
substantial experience, we conclude that Officer Helms did not have reasonable suspicion
to extend the stop. Simply put, the factors articulated to support reasonable suspicion in
19
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4086 Doc: 83 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 20 of 20
this case do not “serve to eliminate a substantial portion of innocent travelers.” Foreman,
369 F.3d at 781. The district court erred in denying the motion to suppress. 12
IV.
In sum, we affirm the district court’s denial of Miller’s motion to transfer. But
because the extension of the traffic stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion, the
district court erred in denying Miller’s motion to suppress the evidence seized during the
subsequent search. Accordingly, the district court’s order denying Miller’s motion to
suppress is reversed, Miller’s conviction and sentence are vacated, and the case is
remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART,
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED, AND REMANDED
12
Miller also challenges the district court’s sentencing decision, arguing that it
focused too heavily on a single issue at the expense of a properly reasoned analysis of the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Because we vacate Miller’s conviction and sentence based on
the Fourth Amendment violation, this issue is now moot.
20