United States v. Miller

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 10, 2006
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-30561
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
versus
CHARLES J. MILLER
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Western District of Louisiana
(USDC No. 3:04-CR-30041-ALL)
_________________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*1
In an appeal involving a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we review
the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.
United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 526 (5th Cir. 2004). Under the two-part Terry
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should
not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in
5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
reasonable suspicion test, we inquire whether the officer’s action during a traffic stop
was: (1) “justified at its inception”; and (2) “reasonably related in scope to the
circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S.
1, 19-20, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1879, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 905 (1968). We affirm for the
following reasons:
1. Miller argues that his driving was not bad enough to create a reasonable
suspicion that he was intoxicated or fatigued. “[R]easonable suspicion
exists when the officer can point to specific and articulable facts which,
taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant
the search and seizure.” United States v. Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d 420, 430
(5th Cir. 2005). Miller’s weaving and slow driving at 4:30 in the morning
established reasonable suspicion that he could be intoxicated or fatigued.
Weaving entirely within one lane of traffic is not necessarily less dangerous
than weaving across lanes. Accordingly, the officer’s decision to stop
Miller was justified at its inception.
2. “[I]f additional reasonable suspicion arises in the course of the stop and
before the initial purpose of the stop has been fulfilled, then the detention
may continue until the new reasonable suspicion has been dispelled or
confirmed.” Id. at 431. In United States v. Gonzalez, 328 F.3d 755 (5th Cir.
2003), the defendant appealed a narcotics conviction for drugs found in the
course of a traffic stop. The court held that nervous behavior exhibited and
2
inconsistent answer given by Gonzalez, as well as his admission to a prior
drug conviction, gave rise to a reasonable articulable suspicion that
Gonzalez was involved in drug trafficking. Id. at 758. Like Gonzalez,
Miller admitted to a previous drug conviction, offered inconsistent
statements, and exhibited nervous behavior. Miller’s incessant rocking back
and forth and the rubbing of his arms and hands suggested that he was either
under the influence of drugs or had reason to be apprehensive. Taken
together, these facts gave rise to additional reasonable suspicion that Miller
was involved in drug trafficking and justified the employment of the dog to
sniff the exterior of the vehicle.
AFFIRMED.
3