State v. Junjie Li State v. Zhong Kuang

Supreme Court
(Dissent begins on Page 33)
State :
v. : No. 2021-153-C.A.
(K2/19-513A)
Junjie Li. :
State :
v. : No. 2021-154-C.A.
(K2/19-513B)
Zhong Kuang. :
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision
before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers
are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme
Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence,
Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone (401) 222-3258 or
Email opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov, of any typographical
or other formal errors in order that corrections may be
made before the opinion is published.
Supreme Court
(Dissent beings on Page 33)
State :
v. : No. 2021-153-C.A.
(K2/19-513A)
Junjie Li. :
State :
v. : No. 2021-154-C.A.
(K2/19-513B)
Zhong Kuang. :
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.
OPINION
Justice Lynch Prata, for the Court. In these cases consolidated for
argument, the state appeals from two identical orders of the Superior Court granting
the defendants’, Junjie Li (Li) and Zhong Kuang (Kuang) (collectively, defendants),
motions to suppress evidence of approximately ninety-four (94) pounds of marijuana
seized from Kuang’s vehicle during a traffic stop. 1 On appeal, the state asserts that
the trial justice erred in granting the defendants’ motions to suppress, contending
1
On September 5, 2019, Li and Kuang each filed separate motions to suppress
seeking the same relief—suppression of the ninety-four pounds of marijuana. As a
result, these motions were heard and decided together by the Superior Court. On
February 15, 2023, Kuang filed a motion to join in the appellate brief of Li, which
we granted on March 24, 2023.
-1-
that the police officer who conducted the traffic stop had reasonable suspicion to
prolong the stop after detecting a slight odor of marijuana and observing nervous
behavior on the part of the defendants. For the reasons set forth herein, we vacate
the orders of the Superior Court.
Facts and Travel
The facts of this case arise from events that occurred on May 25, 2019. On
that day, Rhode Island State Trooper Justin Andreozzi (Officer Andreozzi) was
assigned to monitor northbound traffic on Interstate 95 from a fixed position located
in the median under the Austin Farm Road overpass in the Town of Exeter. 2 At
approximately 11:16 a.m., Officer Andreozzi observed a black Ford Taurus sedan
with a New York registration traveling northbound in the right traffic lane. As the
vehicle approached Officer Andreozzi’s post, he observed that the front-seat
passenger, who was later identified as Kuang, was sleeping and not wearing his seat
belt.3 Because of this, Officer Andreozzi entered the highway and attempted to
2
Officer Andreozzi graduated from the Rhode Island State Police Academy in 2011
and had been a State Trooper for approximately ten years at the time of the hearing.
Before becoming a State Trooper, Officer Andreozzi was a police officer for the
Town of Portsmouth for approximately four years. Officer Andreozzi testified that,
during his time in the police academy, he received training on how to detect
marijuana and other drugs through sight and smell, as well as on how to detect
nervous behavior and how that behavior corresponds to potential criminal offenses
involved in motor vehicle stops.
3
At the February 24, 2021 hearing, counsel for defendants stipulated to Li’s and
Kuang’s identification.
-2-
catch up with the vehicle for the purpose of conducting a traffic stop related to the
seat-belt violation. According to Officer Andreozzi, once he was behind the vehicle,
he observed Kuang looking over his left shoulder at the cruiser and then put his seat
belt on. 4 Thereafter, Officer Andreozzi activated his emergency lights in the area of
Weaver Hill, and the vehicle came to a slow stop in the breakdown lane.
Once the vehicle was pulled over, Officer Andreozzi exited his police cruiser
and approached on the passenger side to avoid standing directly in the road. As
Officer Andreozzi approached the vehicle, he observed two male occupants—Li,
who was operating the vehicle, and Kuang, who was in the passenger seat. Officer
Andreozzi initiated the traffic stop by speaking with Li and explaining the reason for
the stop. 5 Officer Andreozzi thereafter asked Li for his license, registration, and
insurance, which he provided. Officer Andreozzi noticed that the name on the
vehicle’s registration was different from the driver’s name, and Li explained that the
4
Officer Andreozzi testified that, when the vehicle initially passed his location, it
was clear that Kuang was asleep. It was only after Officer Andreozzi got behind the
vehicle that he observed Kuang sit up, look back at him, and put his seatbelt on.
According to Officer Andreozzi, when he approached the vehicle after pulling it
over, it appeared that Kuang was sleeping again until Officer Andreozzi made
contact with defendants, at which point Kuang woke up.
5
Although it was apparent to Officer Andreozzi that English was not Li’s primary
language, Officer Andreozzi did not believe that there was any significant language
barrier as Li appeared to understand what Officer Andreozzi was asking and
provided proper responses. We believe, as did the Superior Court, that it is necessary
to note that both defendants requested and were provided with a court interpreter for
the hearing on their motions to suppress.
-3-
vehicle belonged to Kuang, Li’s uncle, and that he and Kuang were going to visit a
friend in Chinatown in Boston for a couple of hours and would be driving back to
New York thereafter. Li also explained that the reason he was driving Kuang’s
vehicle was that Kuang was tired due to the long ride from New York to Boston.
While conversing with Li, Officer Andreozzi stated that he noticed Li begin
to exhibit nervous behavior. Specifically, Officer Andreozzi stated that he observed
Li’s neck pulsing, his chest pounding, and his beginning to perspire despite the mild
temperature in late May. Officer Andreozzi stated that he could see Kuang’s chest
was pounding as well. It was around this time that Officer Andreozzi also detected
a “slight odor of fresh marijuana” coming from inside the vehicle.
Subsequently, once Officer Andreozzi obtained defendants’ driver’s licenses
and the vehicle’s registration, he requested that Li exit the vehicle and directed him
to sit in the front passenger seat of the police cruiser while Officer Andreozzi
performed law enforcement checks. According to Officer Andreozzi, he requested
that Li exit the vehicle for his safety, to separate Li and Kuang, and to ask questions
without prolonging the stop. Notably, Officer Andreozzi testified that Li was not
free to leave once he was placed in the front passenger seat of the police cruiser.
Officer Andreozzi then returned to his cruiser to conduct the law enforcement check,
and, in conducting this check, he learned that the vehicle’s registration was active,
-4-
that both defendants had valid New York driver’s licenses, and that neither had any
criminal history.
While Li was sitting in the cruiser, Officer Andreozzi proceeded to ask him
several questions. Specifically, Officer Andreozzi asked Li questions concerning
whether the vehicle contained any illegal contraband such as firearms, cocaine, or
methamphetamines, to which Li replied no. Officer Andreozzi then asked Li if the
vehicle contained any marijuana.6 According to Officer Andreozzi, Li paused and
did what Officer Andreozzi described as a “target glance” at the vehicle before
stating that the vehicle did not contain marijuana.7 Officer Andreozzi explained
that a target glance is a nonverbal indicator of criminal activity, specifically the
transportation of narcotics. It was around this time that Officer Andreozzi called for
backup and requested that Rhode Island State Trooper James D’Angelo
(Officer D’Angelo) report to the scene with his K-9, Chuck, who was trained in
marijuana detection.
6
According to Officer Andreozzi, asking individual questions concerning different
types of narcotics and contraband is a tactic used by officers when they suspect some
type of criminal activity is afoot. This tactic allows officers to gauge how the
suspect’s verbal and nonverbal responses change based on the narcotic or contraband
referred to in the question.
7
Officer Andreozzi also stated that, while he was questioning Li about the presence
of marijuana in the vehicle, Li initially told Officer Andreozzi that he did not know
what marijuana was before stating that there was no marijuana in the vehicle.
-5-
Shortly thereafter, Officer D’Angelo arrived at the scene with Chuck. Officer
Andreozzi had Li remain in the front passenger seat of his police cruiser, and he
requested that Kuang, who was still sitting in the passenger seat, exit the vehicle and
stand in front of the cruiser in the breakdown lane. As Kuang exited the vehicle,
Officer Andreozzi stated that he again detected an odor of fresh marijuana, this time
emanating from Kuang’s clothing. Once Kuang exited the vehicle, Officer
D’Angelo brought Chuck to the front of the vehicle to perform an exterior sniff of
the vehicle. Officer D’Angelo guided Chuck to the front passenger headlight and
then walked him counterclockwise around the vehicle. Once Chuck reached the rear
of the vehicle, he placed his nose on the trunk seal and sat down, indicating to Officer
D’Angelo the presence of a narcotic odor. The length of time between the initial
stop and the dog sniff was approximately fifteen minutes.
Officer Andreozzi then proceeded to open the trunk of the vehicle, where he
and Officer D’Angelo observed five large laundry-style bags containing a total of
ninety-four (94) approximately one-pound vacuum-sealed bags of suspected
marijuana. Thereafter, Officer Andreozzi and Officer D’Angelo placed Li and
Kuang under arrest and transported them to the Hope Valley Barracks. Officer
Andreozzi then arranged for the vehicle to be towed to the Hope Valley Barracks.
After the vehicle arrived at the barracks, Officer Andreozzi and Officer
D’Angelo performed an inventory search and discovered a set of metal nunchucks
-6-
in the map pocket of the driver’s-side door. Officer Andreozzi and Officer
D’Angelo also removed the suspected marijuana from the trunk of the vehicle and
conducted a field test. The test yielded a positive response to the presumptive
presence of marijuana. Officer Andreozzi and Officer D’Angelo further discovered
approximately $6,100 in Kuang’s wallet while searching his person. The state
ultimately charged both Li and Kuang with one count of possession with intent to
deliver marijuana and one count of possession of one to five kilograms of marijuana.
The state also separately charged Li with possession of the metal nunchucks in
violation of G.L. § 1956 11-47-42.
On September 5, 2019, Li and Kuang moved, individually, to suppress the
marijuana seized from Kuang’s vehicle. A suppression hearing was held on
February 24, 2021, and on May 10, 2021, the trial justice issued a written decision,
granting both motions to suppress. In granting the motions, the trial justice first
explained that removing Li from the vehicle was a deviation from the mission of the
traffic stop, and thus, Officer Andreozzi prolonged the stop when he removed Li
from the vehicle. To this point, the trial justice reasoned that, although officers are
generally permitted to ask a driver to exit the vehicle during a motor vehicle stop for
purposes of officer safety, Officer Andreozzi’s actions were “more akin to using
officer safety as a mechanism to facilitate a detour from the traffic enforcement
mission.” The trial justice opined that Officer Andreozzi’s conduct during the traffic
-7-
stop was “at odds with [that of] someone who ha[d] legitimate concerns for their
safety.”8 The trial justice was also not persuaded by Officer Andreozzi’s two
additional justifications for removing Li from the vehicle: to separate Li and Kuang
and to prevent prolonging the traffic stop. For these reasons, according to the trial
justice, it was clear that Officer Andreozzi departed from his seat-belt-violation
mission and pursued a narcotics investigation when he removed Li from the vehicle.
After concluding that Officer Andreozzi prolonged the traffic stop when he
removed Li from the vehicle, the court then proceeded to address the reasonableness
of Officer Andreozzi’s prolonging the stop. Importantly, the trial justice declined to
consider Officer Andreozzi’s observations of Li’s behavior after Li was removed
from the vehicle because, for the reasons noted above, these events occurred after
the stop was prolonged. The trial justice concluded that the nervousness of
defendants, as well as their route of travel, was of minimal relevance, and that
“nervousness, coupled with the slight odor of marijuana and the location of the
traffic stop being in a known drug trafficking corridor” was insufficient to establish
reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop. In reaching this conclusion, the trial justice
noted that Officer Andreozzi did not follow up on the slight odor he detected by
asking, for example, whether defendants had a medical marijuana card or if either
8
To this point, the trial justice noted that “[w]hat [was] most concerning * * * is that
Andreozzi did not conduct a pat down of Li, which [was] inconsistent with his
statement that he asked Li to exit the vehicle out of a concern for his safety.”
-8-
Li or Kuang had been smoking marijuana that day. According to the trial justice,
asking these questions would have allowed Officer Andreozzi to better develop his
suspicions during the stop. However, Officer Andreozzi did not do this, and,
consequently, the trial justice was of the opinion that the extension of the traffic stop
beyond its original scope was unreasonable under the circumstances because Officer
Andreozzi did not have independent reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop.
Therefore, the trial justice granted both motions to suppress.
An order granting Li’s motion to suppress was entered on May 21, 2021, and
the state filed a timely notice of appeal.9
Standard of Review
“When reviewing a trial justice’s decision granting or denying a motion to
suppress, we defer to the factual findings of the trial justice.” State v. Morillo, 285
A.3d 995, 1002-03 (R.I. 2022) (brackets omitted) (quoting State v. Storey, 8 A.3d
454, 459-60 (R.I. 2010)). “This Court ‘will not overturn a trial justice’s factual
findings unless they are clearly erroneous.’” Id. at 1003 (quoting State v. Gonzalez,
254 A.3d 813, 817 (R.I. 2021)). “A finding is clearly erroneous when, although
9
Although the state filed notices of appeal in both cases on May 28, 2021, the order
granting Kuang’s motion to suppress was not entered until January 5, 2022.
Nevertheless, we treat this appeal as timely. See Article I, Rule 4(b) of the Supreme
Court Rules of Appellate Procedure (“A notice of appeal filed after the
announcement of a decision, sentence, or order but before entry of the judgment or
order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the day thereof.”).
-9-
there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the basis of the entire evidence
is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id.(quoting State v. Grayhurst, 852 A.2d 491, 513 (R.I. 2004)). “With respect to
questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact involving constitutional issues,
however, this Court engages in a de novo review.” Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting
State v. Jimenez, 33 A.3d 724, 732 (R.I. 2011)). “We review a trial justice’s
determination of the existence or nonexistence of probable cause or reasonable
suspicion on a de novo basis.” State v. Taveras, 39 A.3d 638, 646 (R.I. 2012)
(quoting State v. Abdullah, 730 A.2d 1074, 1076 (R.I. 1999)).
Discussion
The state contends on appeal that the trial justice incorrectly concluded that
the vehicle stop in this case was prolonged without reasonable suspicion of criminal
activity. According to the state, Officer Andreozzi’s experience and training,
coupled with defendants’ nervousness, Li’s responses to questions, and Officer
Andreozzi’s detection of the slight odor of fresh marijuana, constitute specific and
articulable facts giving Officer Andreozzi reasonable suspicion to prolong the traffic
stop for purposes of conducting a dog sniff of the vehicle. Therefore, the state
maintains, the trial justice erred in granting defendants’ motions to suppress.
Conversely, defendants contend that the trial justice properly granted their
motions to suppress, arguing that Officer Andreozzi unlawfully prolonged the traffic
- 10 -
stop because he did not possess reasonable suspicion to inquire about crimes other
than the seat-belt violation. According to defendants, the slight odor of marijuana,
combined with defendants’ nervousness, did not give Officer Andreozzi reasonable
suspicion to believe that criminal activity was afoot. As such, defendants ask this
Court to affirm the trial justice’s grant of their motions to suppress.
“The Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth
Amendment, guarantees a person’s right to be secure against unreasonable searches
and seizures.” State v. Foster, 842 A.2d 1047, 1050 (R.I. 2004). “A traffic stop, by
definition, embodies a detention of the vehicle and its occupants. It therefore
constitutes a seizure within the purview of the Fourth Amendment.” United States
v. Chhien, 266 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2001); see also State v. Parra, 941 A.2d 799, 803-
04 (R.I. 2007) (“It is well established that when a police officer makes a traffic stop,
both the driver and any passengers are seized within the meaning of the Fourth
Amendment, regardless of the brevity of the stop.”). Thus, any occupant in the
vehicle “may challenge his own detention regardless of whether he was the
immediate target of the investigation or whether he had a privacy interest in the
vehicle itself.” United States v. Sowers, 136 F.3d 24, 27 (1st Cir. 1998).
“It is well established that a traffic stop, regardless of how brief and limited,
constitutes a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes, and thus must be reasonable
under the circumstances.” State v. Quinlan, 921 A.2d 96, 106 (R.I. 2007); id. at 108
- 11 -
(“An automobile stop and subsequent investigation must be reasonable under the
circumstances, including its purpose and duration.”). The United States Supreme
Court has made clear that, in order to justify the type of seizure involved in a traffic
stop, “officers need only ‘reasonable suspicion’—that is, ‘a particularized and
objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped’ of breaking the law.”
Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54, 60 (2014) (quoting Navarette v. California,
572 U.S. 393, 396 (2014)). “The ‘reasonable suspicion’ necessary to justify such a
stop ‘is dependent upon both the content of information possessed by police and
its degree of reliability.’” Navarette, 572 U.S. at 397 (quoting Alabama v. White,
496 U.S. 325, 330 (1990)). While a mere “hunch” does not create reasonable
suspicion, “the level of suspicion the standard requires is ‘considerably less than
proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence,’ and ‘obviously less’ than
is necessary for probable cause * * *.” Id. (quoting United States v. Sokolow, 490
U.S. 1, 7 (1989)). Put simply, reasonable suspicion “takes into account ‘the totality
of the circumstances—the whole picture.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Cortez,
449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981)).
At the outset, we note that counsel for defendants conceded at the February
24, 2021 suppression hearing that the initial stop by Officer Andreozzi was valid,
and that after Chuck indicated to Officer D’Angelo the presence of a narcotic odor,
the troopers had probable cause pursuant to the automobile exception to search the
- 12 -
vehicle. See United States v. Orth, 873 F.3d 349, 353-54 (1st Cir. 2017) (holding
that in determining the lawfulness of a traffic stop, the court must first consider
“whether the initial stop was justified; and second, whether the police had a legal
basis to justify an investigation beyond the scope of the reason for the stop itself”).
Therefore, the primary question presented by the instant appeal is whether Officer
Andreozzi possessed reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity was afoot,
justifying the prolongation of the stop to conduct a dog sniff.
As mentioned above, the trial justice determined in this case that Officer
Andreozzi “departed from his seatbelt violation mission and pursued a narcotics
investigation when he removed Li from the vehicle.” Specifically, the trial justice
concluded that “Andreozzi removed Li from the vehicle under the pretense of a
safety precaution in order to facilitate a detour from the traffic violation mission of
the traffic stop and to perform [an] on-scene investigation into narcotic trafficking.”
In making this determination, the trial justice explained that he was not persuaded
by Officer Andreozzi’s testimony that he removed Li from the vehicle for his safety
while conducting ordinary inquiries incident to the traffic stop because Officer
Andreozzi’s actions were “more akin to using officer safety as a mechanism to
facilitate a detour from the traffic enforcement mission.” The trial justice further
explained that Officer Andreozzi “feeling uncomfortable” did not equate to “feeling
unsafe” because doing so “would set a significantly lower standard than the one
- 13 -
expressed in [Pennsylvania v.] Mimms[, 434 U.S. 106 (1977),] and Rodriguez
[v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015),] for police officers to remove drivers and
passengers from their vehicles.” Based on these reasons, the trial justice found that
Officer Andreozzi prolonged the traffic stop when he removed Li from the vehicle
and did so under the pretense of officer safety.
On appeal, the state argues that Officer Andreozzi’s request for Li to
step out of the lawfully stopped vehicle was constitutionally valid and did not
unnecessarily prolong the traffic stop. According to the state, the trial justice
misconstrued the holdings set forth in Mimms and its progeny, and ignored this
Court’s settled jurisprudence in determining that Officer Andreozzi departed from
the seat-belt-violation mission when he asked Li to exit the vehicle. To this point,
the state relies on State v. Collodo, 661 A.2d 62 (R.I. 1995), where this Court held
that, under Mimms, an officer may, as a matter of course, order a driver to step out
of a lawfully stopped vehicle. See Collodo, 661 A.2d at 64. Therefore, the state
maintains, it was not necessary, as a matter of law, for Officer Andreozzi to have an
articulable fear for his safety before asking Li to exit the lawfully stopped vehicle.
Nevertheless, according to the state, the record reflects that Officer Andreozzi had
not one but three valid law enforcement reasons for asking Li to step out of the
vehicle. Consequently, the state contends, Officer Andreozzi’s request for Li to step
- 14 -
out of the vehicle was “constitutionally valid and wholly comports with this Court’s
jurisprudence.”10 We agree.
The United States Supreme Court has made clear “that a seizure that is lawful
at its inception can violate the Fourth Amendment if its manner of execution
unreasonably infringes interests protected by the Constitution.” Illinois v. Caballes,
543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005). “A seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing
a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time
reasonably required to complete that mission.” Id. Put simply, “[a]n officer’s
inquiries into matters unrelated to the justification for the traffic stop * * * do[es]
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,
555 U.S. 323, 333 (2009).
“Like a Terry stop, the tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop
context is determined by the seizure’s ‘mission’—to address the traffic violation that
warranted the stop * * * and attend to related safety concerns * * *.” Rodriguez, 575
U.S. at 354. Thus, “[a]uthority for the seizure * * * ends when tasks tied to the
traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed.” Id. However,
10
Notably, defendants did not respond to these arguments made by the state relative
to the issue of when the traffic stop was prolonged in their submissions to this Court.
At oral argument, however, counsel for defendants argued that the stop was
prolonged once Li was physically placed inside the cruiser.
- 15 -
this does not mean that the mission of an officer conducting a traffic stop is
constrained to determining whether to issue a traffic ticket. See id. at 354-55. As the
Supreme Court noted in Rodriguez, “[b]eyond determining whether to issue a traffic
ticket, an officer’s mission includes ‘ordinary inquiries incident to the traffic stop.’”
Id. at 355 (brackets omitted) (quoting Caballes, 543 U.S. at 408). “Typically[,] such
inquiries involve checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are
outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration
and proof of insurance.” Id. “An officer, in other words, may conduct certain
unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop. But * * * he may not do so
in a way that prolongs the stop, absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded
to justify detaining an individual.” Id.“It is well settled that an officer can order the driver and passengers to get
out of a lawfully stopped vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment’s
prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Quinlan, 921 A.2d at 108;
see also Mimms, 434 U.S. at 111 n.6 (holding that police officers may order the
driver out of a lawfully stopped vehicle); Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 415
(1997) (extending the holding set forth in Mimms to apply to passengers of lawfully
stopped vehicles). In Mimms, the United States Supreme Court held that police
officers can order the operator of a car stopped for a traffic offense to get out of the
- 16 -
vehicle. Mimms, 434 U.S. at 111 n.6. In so holding, the Supreme Court explained
that:
“We think this additional intrusion can only be described
as de minimis. The driver is being asked to expose to view
very little more of his person than is already exposed. The
police have already lawfully decided that the driver shall
be briefly detained; the only question is whether he shall
spend that period sitting in the driver’s seat of his car or
standing alongside it. Not only is the insistence of the
police on the latter choice not a serious intrusion upon the
sanctity of the person, but it hardly rises to the level of a
petty indignity. * * * What is at most a mere inconvenience
cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns
for the officer’s safety.” Id. at 111 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
As noted by the state, in Collodo, we had opportunity to consider whether the
Supreme Court’s holding in Mimms required an officer to have a reasonable belief
or a valid reason to suspect that a person is armed and dangerous before ordering a
person out of a lawfully stopped vehicle. Collodo, 661 A.2d at 64. In determining
that Mimms did not impose any such requirement, we explained that “[n]owhere in
the Mimms opinion did the Supreme Court suggest a requirement that the police
officer have a reasonable belief that the defendant was armed and dangerous.” Id.We therefore expressly rejected the proposition that Mimms required an officer to
have a reasonable belief or a valid reason to suspect that a person is armed and
dangerous before the officer may order the person out of the car. Id. Thus, relying
on Mimms, we held that “an officer may, as a matter of course, order a driver to step
- 17 -
out of a lawfully stopped vehicle.” Id.; see also State v. Soares, 648 A.2d 804, 806
(R.I. 1994) (holding that “the reasoning in Mimms should be extended to apply to
any occupants of vehicles stopped for any valid reason”).
In the instant case, it is clear that, applying the holdings set forth in Mimms
and Collodo, Officer Andreozzi was permitted, as a matter of course, to order Li to
step out of the lawfully stopped vehicle. See Mimms, 434 U.S. at 111 n.6; Collodo,
661 A.2d at 64. In fact, while Officer Andreozzi provided three justifications
for asking Li to step out of the vehicle, all of which the trial justice found to
be unpersuasive, these rationales were unnecessary for Officer Andreozzi to
establish before ordering Li out of the vehicle. See Collodo, 661 A.2d at 64.
Officer Andreozzi’s request for Li to exit the lawfully stopped vehicle was in no way
unconstitutional, as it was a de minimis intrusion on his personal liberty.
See Mimms, 434 U.S. at 111 (holding that the insistence by law enforcement to have
a motorist stand along roadside is not a “serious intrusion upon the sanctity of
the person[]” and “hardly rises to the level of a ‘petty indignity’”) (quoting Terry
v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 17 (1968)). We therefore disagree with the trial justice that
Officer Andreozzi prolonged the stop and departed from the seat-belt-violation
mission when he removed Li from the vehicle. However, because we are of the
opinion that reasonable suspicion did exist at this time, as examined below, we need
not pinpoint the exact moment when the stop was prolonged.
- 18 -
In considering whether Officer Andreozzi possessed reasonable suspicion to
prolong the stop, the trial justice opined that there were few facts, when viewed
together, that could provide Officer Andreozzi with reasonable suspicion to believe
criminal activity was afoot. According to the trial justice, the only articulable facts
available to Officer Andreozzi at the time he prolonged the stop were “Li’s
nervousness, the slight odor of marijuana, and the fact that [d]efendants were
traveling on a public highway known to be part of a drug trafficking corridor.”
With respect to nervousness, the trial justice stated that nervousness was of
slight use because it “is a common and entirely natural reaction to police presence.”
(Quoting United States v. McKoy, 428 F.3d 38, 40 (1st Cir. 2005).) Similarly, the
trial justice stated that the fact that defendants were traveling on a public highway
considered to be part of a drug trafficking corridor was of minimal probative value
because it would be unreasonable to infer that a person is a drug trafficker simply
from using a highway. Lastly, as to the slight odor of marijuana, the trial justice
explained that, although this Court has not yet “addressed how the odor of marijuana
affects the reasonable suspicion or probable cause determination in light of the
decriminalization of marijuana,” marijuana remains a factor to be considered
because it is still contraband despite being decriminalized. However, the trial justice
also stated that the court cannot ignore the effect the decriminalization of marijuana
has on motor vehicle stops. According to the trial justice, were the court to hold that
- 19 -
the odor of marijuana, combined with nervousness and a vehicle’s route of travel,
with nothing more, provides reasonable suspicion, “it would be undermining our
Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that serves to protect the right of the people to be
free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”
For these reasons, the trial justice concluded that the factors which he detailed
were “insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion to prolong the traffic stop
of [Kuang’s] vehicle.” The trial justice therefore held that Officer Andreozzi’s
extension of the traffic stop beyond its original scope was unreasonable under the
circumstances because he did not have independent reasonable suspicion to
prolong the stop of the vehicle.
As the trial justice noted, this Court has yet to address how the odor of
marijuana affects the reasonable-suspicion or probable-cause determination in light
of the decriminalization, and subsequent legalization, of marijuana in Rhode
Island. 11 On this point, defendants suggest that Officer Andreozzi could detain Li
for an investigation into drug offenses only if he possessed reasonable suspicion to
believe the vehicle contained more than one ounce of marijuana. According to
defendants, this is because possessing less than one ounce of marijuana was
11
At the time of the stop and of the trial justice’s decision, marijuana in Rhode Island
was decriminalized but not yet legalized. See G.L. 1956 § 21-28-4.01(c)(2). On May
25, 2022, the General Assembly enacted the Rhode Island Cannabis Act, which
authorizes individuals to possess one ounce of marijuana for recreational use.
See G.L. 1956 § 21-28.11-22(a)(1).
- 20 -
decriminalized by the Rhode Island Controlled Substances Act, and later legalized
by the Rhode Island Cannabis Act. See G.L. 1956 § 21-28-4.01(c)(2)(iii), as
amended by P.L. 2012, ch. 221, § 1 and P.L. 2012, ch. 233, § 1; 12 G.L. 1956 § 21-
28.11-22(a)(1). Therefore, defendants contend that police may not rely upon the
odor of marijuana, with no other facts indicating quantity, to establish reasonable
suspicion to prolong a traffic stop. Consequently, defendants aver, reasonable
suspicion that a criminal amount of marijuana is in the vehicle, supported by
articulable facts, is necessary to detain the occupants for an investigation.
However, the state maintains that the odor of raw marijuana remains a factor
to be considered in a Fourth Amendment, reasonable suspicion analysis for several
reasons.13 First, the state asserts that the statutory language of the Rhode Island
Controlled Substances Act, the Rhode Island Cannabis Act, and the Medical
12
At the time of the stop, the relevant provision relative to the decriminalization of
marijuana was contained in G.L. 1956 § 21-28-4.01(c)(2)(iii). This statute was
amended in both 2021 and 2022 and the decriminalization language is now found in
§ 21-28-4.01(c)(2)(iv). This Court will refer to § 21-28-4.01(c)(2)(iii) for purposes
of this opinion.
13
The state limited its argument on this point to the specific issue presented in this
case: a law enforcement officer’s detection of the odor of fresh or raw marijuana.
The state does not discuss the odor of burnt marijuana because this would implicate
additional legal provisions and penalties not at issue in this case. See, e.g., G.L. 1956
§ 21-28.11-29(a)(3) (criminalizing operating a motor vehicle while under the
influence of marijuana). The trial justice also noted in granting defendants’ motions
to suppress that the court was not distinguishing between fresh and burnt odors of
marijuana because the nature of the odor did not change its analysis of reasonable
suspicion. Consequently, we similarly limit our discussion related hereto to a law
enforcement officer’s detection of the odor of fresh or raw marijuana.
- 21 -
Marijuana Act reflects a clear legislative intent that, regardless of changes
to marijuana possession for medical or recreational use, “marijuana remain[s]
a scheduled narcotic, continues to be classified as contraband and is subject to law
enforcement seizure, and no exemptions or absolution exists for those individuals
found in possession of marijuana in amounts that exceed the quantities specifically
allowed.” (Citing § 21-28-5.06; G.L. 1956 § 21-28.6-9(d); §§ 21-28.11-18(b), 11-
29(f)(5).) According to the state, the plain language of these acts do not support the
assertion that law enforcement officers should be limited in their ability to
investigate marijuana offenses or be subject to a heightened reasonable suspicion
standard when investigating possible marijuana offenses.
Second, the state points out that many jurisdictions which have addressed the
impact that changing marijuana laws has on their Fourth Amendment jurisprudence
have held that the odor of marijuana remains a factor to be considered in a totality of
the circumstances analysis, regardless of quantity or odor strength. Thus, according
to the state, even among states that have passed laws permitting medical or
recreational marijuana use, it is generally accepted that the odor of raw marijuana
remains a factor to be considered in a reasonable-suspicion analysis.
The state next contends that this Court has never required law enforcement to
accurately determine the quantity of a substance before having the ability to
investigate the attendant circumstances or take further action. The state argues that
- 22 -
established Fourth Amendment principles “allow an officer who detects an
identifiable scent of a scheduled narcotic to diligently pursue a means of
investigation that will confirm or dispel their suspicions that criminal activity is
afoot.” Therefore, the state contends, adopting the position suggested by defendants
would create situations where an officer “could not investigate a smell that the
officer was specifically trained to recognize as a controlled substance” merely
because the officer was unable, through scent, to determine its quantity. This,
according to the state, would be “an absurd result that this Court should not
condone.” In a similar vein, the state avers that the imposition of a quantity
requirement would undoubtedly impact the widely prevalent and accepted use of K-
9 dogs, who are specifically trained to identify, regardless of quantity, the presence
of scheduled narcotics through detection of a scent. Consequently, the state
maintains that the smell of raw marijuana remains a factor to be considered in a
totality of the circumstances, reasonable suspicion of criminal activity analysis.
Although marijuana remains a controlled substance, and therefore contraband,
possession of less than one ounce of marijuana was decriminalized by § 21-28-
4.01(c)(2)(iii) of the Rhode Island Controlled Substances Act, which was in effect
on the day in question. Specifically, § 21-28-4.01(c)(2)(iii) provides, in pertinent
part, that:
“Notwithstanding any public, special, or general law to the
contrary, the possession of one ounce (1 oz.) or less of
- 23 -
marijuana by a person who is eighteen (18) years of age or
older, and who is not exempted from penalties pursuant to
chapter 28.6 of this title, shall constitute a civil offense,
rendering the offender liable to a civil penalty in the
amount of one hundred fifty dollars ($150) and forfeiture
of the marijuana, but not to any other form of criminal or
civil punishment or disqualification.” Section 21-28-
4.01(c)(2)(iii).
Importantly, the Rhode Island Controlled Substances Act did not alter or
otherwise change marijuana’s status as contraband because it did not declassify
marijuana as a controlled substance, regardless of quantity. See § 21-28-2.08(d)(17).
Rather, the Rhode Island Controlled Substances Act merely changed the penalties
associated with the illegal possession of marijuana and did so only for those
individuals found to be in possession of less than one ounce. See § 21-28-
4.01(c)(2)(iii). So too with the passage of the Medical Marijuana Act, possession of
marijuana over the limit permitted thereby would subject the individual to possible
arrest and prosecution under the Rhode Island Controlled Substances Act. See § 21-
28.6-9(d). Indeed, the same holds true for the recently enacted Rhode Island
Cannabis Act, which provides, in relevant part, that:
“Notwithstanding any other general or special law to the
contrary, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a
person twenty-one (21) years of age or older shall not be
arrested, prosecuted, penalized, sanctioned or disqualified
under the laws of the state in any manner, or denied any
right or privilege and shall not be subject to seizure or
forfeiture of assets for:
- 24 -
“(1) Possessing, using, purchasing from a licensed
cannabis retailer, or processing one ounce (1 oz.) or less
of cannabis, or the equivalent amount in the form of
cannabis concentrate[.]” Section 21-28.11-22(a)(1).
The Rhode Island Cannabis Act goes on to explicitly state that, “[i]f a person
exceeds the possession limits in violation of law * * * he or she may also be subject
to arrest and prosecution under chapter 28 of this title.” See § 21-28.11-18(b)
(emphasis added). The Rhode Island Cannabis Act also plainly states that “[a]ll
cannabis products that are held within the borders of this state in violation of the
provisions of chapters 28.6 or 28.11 of this title * * * are declared to be contraband
goods and may be seized by * * * any police or other law enforcement officer in
accordance with applicable law * * *.” Id. § 21-28.11-18(d) (emphasis added)
(“All contraband goods seized by the state under this chapter may be destroyed or
saved as evidence for the purposes of criminal prosecution.”).
The Rhode Island Cannabis Act did not legalize the possession of marijuana
full stop. Rather, it permits, among other things, an individual to possess up to one
ounce of marijuana for recreational purposes, subject to the limitations set forth
therein, as well as in the Rhode Island Controlled Substances Act. See § 21-28.11-
22(a)(1). We therefore agree with the state that none of these acts support
defendants’ position that law enforcement officers should be limited in their ability
to investigate marijuana offenses, or be subjected to a heightened reasonable-
suspicion standard when investigating possible marijuana offenses. The plain
- 25 -
language of these acts reflects the General Assembly’s clear intent to criminalize an
individual’s possession of more than one ounce of marijuana for recreational
purposes. See Mitola v. Providence Public Buildings Authority, 273 A.3d 618, 626
(R.I. 2022) (“When construing a statute, our ultimate goal is to give effect to the
purpose of the act as intended by the Legislature.”) (quoting Generation Realty, LLC
v. Catanzaro, 21 A.3d 253, 259 (R.I. 2011)). Accordingly, we reject defendants’
position that law enforcement officers may not rely upon the odor of marijuana, with
no other facts indicating quantity, to establish reasonable suspicion. Such a standard
would be impracticable to impose on law enforcement officers and their K-9 police
dogs, who are specifically trained to identify the presence of scheduled narcotics
through scent, regardless of quantity. Thus, for these reasons, it is our opinion that
the odor of raw or fresh marijuana, standing alone, remains a factor to be considered
in a totality of the circumstances, reasonable suspicion of criminal activity analysis
because possession of marijuana by an individual that exceeds the amounts
permitted by statute remains a crime subject to arrest and prosecution. See § 21-
28.11-18(b).
We will now address whether Officer Andreozzi possessed reasonable
suspicion to prolong the stop. See Taveras, 39 A.3d at 646 (“We review a trial
justice’s determination of the existence or nonexistence of probable cause or
reasonable suspicion on a de novo basis.”) (quoting Abdullah, 730 A.2d at 1076).
- 26 -
We have made clear that “a police officer may conduct an investigatory stop,
provided the officer has a reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable
facts that the person detained is engaged in criminal activity.” Id. at 647 (brackets
omitted) (quoting Abdullah, 730 A.2d at 1076). When examining reasonableness,
“we consider the totality of the surrounding circumstances.” United States v. Dion,
859 F.3d 114, 124 (1st Cir. 2017). “No simple, mechanical formula tells us what
reasonable suspicion is, though we know that it is less than probable cause and more
than a naked hunch.” Id. (quoting United States v. McGregor, 650 F.3d 813, 821
(1st Cir. 2011)).
“We recognize that numerous factors may arise and coalesce to contribute to
an officer’s finding of reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct.” Taveras, 39 A.3d
at 647. “Although, standing alone, certain factors may not generate the requisite
reasonable suspicion, when viewed in their entirety[,] these factors may lead to a
reasonable and sustainable suspicion of criminal activity.” Id. (emphasis added).
“This confluence of factors has even greater force when it ‘involves a pragmatic
analysis from the vantage point of a prudent, reasonable police officer in light of the
facts known to him or her at the time of the detention.’” Id. (brackets omitted)
(quoting State v. Halstead, 414 A.2d 1138, 1148 (R.I. 1980)). “The court cannot
evaluate reasonable suspicion in a vacuum; it must ‘make due allowance for the need
for police officers to draw upon their experience and arrive at inferences and
- 27 -
deductions that might well elude an untrained person.’” Orth, 873 F.3d at 355(brackets omitted) (quoting United States v. Arnott, 758 F.3d 40, 44 (1st Cir. 2014)).
“Of course, such deference is not without bounds.” Id. Thus, “we must assess the
presence of reasonable suspicion in a commonsense, case-by-case way, taking in the
whole picture” while also giving a “measurable degree of deference to the
perceptions of experienced law enforcement officers.” Dion, 859 F.3d at 124(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Applying these principles to the instant case, we believe that the trial justice’s
reasonable-suspicion analysis was flawed in two respects. First, as noted by the
state, the trial justice improperly engaged in a “divide-and-conquer” reasonable-
suspicion analysis in granting defendants’ motions to suppress, which was expressly
rejected by the Supreme Court in United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002).
Rather than conducting a totality of the circumstances analysis, the trial justice
instead individually considered each circumstance that Officer Andreozzi relied
upon to develop reasonable suspicion. See id. at 273 (holding that a court making a
reasonable suspicion determination “must look at the ‘totality of the circumstances’
of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a ‘particularized and objective
basis’ for suspecting legal wrongdoing”) (quoting Cortez, 449 U.S. at 417-18). For
example, the trial justice first addressed nervousness and explained that nervousness
was of slight use in the reasonable-suspicion analysis because it “is a common and
- 28 -
entirely natural reaction to police presence.” (Quoting McKoy, 428 F.3d at 40.)
Consequently, the trial justice essentially disregarded nervousness as a factor to be
considered in determining whether Officer Andreozzi developed reasonable
suspicion to prolong the stop. The trial justice similarly gave little to no weight to
the fact that defendants were traveling on a highway considered by law enforcement
to be part of a drug trafficking corridor because it would be “unreasonable to infer
that a person is a drug trafficker simply from a use of the highway * * *.”
Second, despite acknowledging that our caselaw requires the court to give
deference to the perceptions of experienced law enforcement officers, the trial justice
gave little to no weight to Officer Andreozzi’s law enforcement training and
experience. Instead, the trial justice found much of Officer Andreozzi’s testimony
unpersuasive, despite his extensive background and experience. The trial justice
then proceeded to engage in a sort of post hoc analysis by questioning, with the
benefit of hindsight, some of Officer Andreozzi’s actions or inactions during the
encounter. See United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 542 (1985)
(“[W]e have cautioned that courts should not indulge in ‘unrealistic second-
guessing,’ * * * and we have noted that ‘creative judges, engaged in post hoc
evaluations of police conduct can almost always imagine some alternative means by
which the objectives of the police might have been accomplished.’”) (brackets
omitted) (quoting United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686-87 (1985)); Collodo,
- 29 -
661 A.2d at 66 (“[O]bservations and the totality of circumstances ‘must be seen and
weighed not in terms of library analysis by scholars, but as understood by those
versed in the field of law enforcement.’”) (quoting Cortez, 449 U.S. at 418).
We have been clear that nervousness exhibited by a person stopped by law
enforcement is a factor to be considered in a reasonable-suspicion analysis. See State
v. Guzman, 752 A.2d 1, 4 (R.I. 2000) (“Although a suspect’s apparent nervousness
alone cannot elevate reasonable suspicion to the level of probable cause, a police
officer may consider the suspect’s demeanor upon encountering the police,
including any observed nervousness, as one factor within the officer’s probable-
cause calculus.”). Moreover, “[t]he personal knowledge and experience of the
officers are important factors that may allow an officer reasonably to infer from
observation of otherwise innocuous conduct that criminal activity is imminent or is
taking place.” Halstead, 414 A.2d at 1148-49. To this end, we have made clear that
“[i]n making a determination of reasonable suspicion[,] the relevant inquiry is not
whether particular conduct is innocent or guilty, but the degree of suspicion that
attached to particular types of noncriminal acts.” Abdullah, 730 A.2d at 1077(quoting Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 10).
Here, Officer Andreozzi testified during the suppression hearing that, within
minutes of the initial stop, he observed defendants’ abnormal and increasingly
nervous behavior. Specifically, Officer Andreozzi testified that Li grew
- 30 -
“increasingly nervous” and that he could visibly see Li’s chest pounding and sweat
beginning to appear on his forehead and just above his eyebrows. Interestingly,
according to Officer Andreozzi, Li was “fine” when he made the initial approach to
the vehicle but, soon thereafter, Officer Andreozzi could see Li’s increasing
nervousness. Officer Andreozzi testified that, in his experience, Li’s nervousness
“was above where someone is nervous because they were stopped for the passenger
* * * not wearing a seatbelt.” Officer Andreozzi also testified that Kuang became
increasingly nervous and that he could recall observing Kuang’s chest pound as well.
It was soon after observing defendants’ abnormal nervousness that Officer
Andreozzi also noticed the slight odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle.
These observations were coupled with defendants having stated that they were
traveling from New York to Boston to visit a friend for only a couple of hours, and
would be traveling back to New York the same day. Finally, Officer Andreozzi
testified that the vehicle had New York plates and that the route where defendants
were pulled over had a “[v]ery common” history of narcotic trafficking.
Considering the situation as a whole, and affording Officer Andreozzi’s
decade-plus of law enforcement experience due deference, we are satisfied that the
facts and circumstances identified above were sufficiently specific and articulable
for Officer Andreozzi to have developed reasonable suspicion that criminal activity
- 31 -
was afoot, justifying the prolongation of the stop.14 See Halstead, 414 A.2d at 1148(“[R]easonable suspicion, like probable cause, is not an abstract principle to be
considered in a vacuum; it involves a pragmatic analysis from the vantage point of
a prudent, reasonable police officer in light of the facts known to him at the time of
the detention.”). While we acknowledge that defendants’ nervousness and their
route of travel on a public highway were not strong indicators of criminal activity in
and of themselves, when considering the totality of the circumstances from the
vantage point of an experienced police officer, defendants’ abnormal nervousness
and route of travel of short duration, coupled with the odor of marijuana, could very
well create a reasonable suspicion that the defendants were engaged in some sort of
criminal activity. Additionally, we believe that Officer Andreozzi’s conduct was
reasonably responsive to the circumstances justifying the stop in the first place, as
augmented by information gathered during the stop, and that Officer Andreozzi
diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel his
suspicions quickly. See State v. Casas, 900 A.2d 1120, 1133 (R.I. 2006).
Consequently, we hold that the trial justice erred in concluding that Officer
Andreozzi did not possess reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop based on the
14
Because we have determined that reasonable suspicion existed at the time
defendants were lawfully removed from the vehicle, we need go no further in
discussing the events that occurred after Li was seated inside the police cruiser.
- 32 -
totality of the circumstances and, therefore, erred in granting defendants’ motions to
suppress evidence of marijuana seized from Kuang’s vehicle.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the orders of the Superior Court and
remand these matters for further proceedings. The record in this matter shall be
returned to the Superior Court with our opinion endorsed thereon.
Justice Long, dissenting. The majority vacates the trial justice’s orders
granting Mr. Li and Mr. Kuang’s motions to suppress and holds that Officer
Andreozzi possessed reasonable suspicion sufficient to prolong the traffic-violation
stop. I disagree. It is my view that the trial justice did not clearly err in determining
that Officer Andreozzi prolonged the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion that
Mr. Li and Mr. Kuang were engaged in criminal activity, and, further, that he did
not clearly err in granting their motions to suppress the evidence found in their
vehicle. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
This Court reviews a trial justice’s findings of historical fact contained in her
or his decision on a motion to suppress for clear error. State v. Guzman, 752 A.2d 1,
3 (R.I. 2000). However, we review a trial justice’s determination of the presence or
absence of reasonable suspicion de novo. State v. Abdullah, 730 A.2d 1074, 1076
(R.I. 1999).
- 33 -
It is indisputable that a police officer’s effectuation of a traffic stop results in
a seizure of the driver and all occupants of the vehicle pursuant to the Fourth
Amendment. State v. Parra, 941 A.2d 799, 803-04 (R.I. 2007). While the Fourth
Amendment plainly permits seizures in certain instances, those seizures must be
reasonable. Id. Further, courts assess the constitutionality of a traffic stop and the
existence of reasonable suspicion by evaluating the totality of the circumstances.
State v. Foster, 842 A.2d 1047, 1050-51 (R.I. 2004). This Court has also held that
the Fourth Amendment permits a police officer to order individuals out of an
otherwise lawfully stopped vehicle. Parra, 941 A.2d at 804. However, once a police
officer accomplishes the purpose of the traffic stop, the officer may not inhibit an
individual and engage in an otherwise open-ended campaign for contraband in
anticipation of discovering additional evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Id.Regarding the duration of a traffic stop, a police officer is permitted to seize
an individual for as long as is needed to address the reason for the traffic stop and to
manage any related safety issues. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354
(2015). “On-scene investigation into other crimes, however, detours from that
mission. * * * So too do safety precautions taken in order to facilitate such detours.”
Id. at 356.
Of course, once an officer makes a lawful traffic stop, the officer may
reasonably respond to circumstances that unfold during the stop. United States v.
- 34 -
Sowers, 136 F.3d 24, 27 (1st Cir. 1998); see also United States v. Orth, 873 F.3d
349, 354 (1st Cir. 2017) (noting that events unfolding during a traffic stop permit
officers to shift their focus and expand the investigation by degrees as they
accumulate new information). To assess the reasonableness of an officer’s response
to the unfolding circumstances of a given case, trial justices must evaluate the totality
of circumstances and balance the nature and quality of that intrusion on an
individual’s personal security against the significance of the government’s interest
offered to justify that further intrusion. Sowers, 136 F.3d at 27.
Applying these principles to the facts of this matter, I believe that the trial
justice appropriately began his analysis by considering whether Officer Andreozzi’s
action in escalating the initial seizure of Mr. Li—by detaining Mr. Li in his cruiser
—was reasonably responsive to the lawful traffic stop for a seat-belt violation. The
trial justice correctly assessed the totality of the circumstances and balanced the
nature and quality of the intrusion on Mr. Li’s personal security against the
importance of the governmental interests alleged to have justified the intrusion. See
Sowers, 136 F.3d at 27. After undertaking this analysis, the trial justice supportably
found that Officer Andreozzi impermissibly escalated his seizure of Mr. Li and that
- 35 -
his subsequent actions did not reasonably respond to events that unfolded following
the traffic stop. 1
1
I concede that the analysis of the reasonableness of Officer Andreozzi’s response
to the unfolding circumstances would be different if Officer Andreozzi had simply
asked Mr. Li to step out of the vehicle. However, the undisputed historical fact found
by the trial justice was that “[a]fter obtaining the vehicle registration as well as Li
and Kuang’s licenses, Andreozzi requested Li to exit the vehicle and directed him to
sit in the front passenger seat of his cruiser while he performed law enforcement
checks.” Officer Andreozzi’s testimony, on both direct and cross-examination,
supports this finding:
“[OFFICER ANDREOZZI]: I asked Mr. Li to exit his car,
come sit with me in my cruiser while I conducted and
checked on the vehicle registration and both of the
occupants’ licenses.
“[PROSECUTOR]: What was the purpose of that?
“[OFFICER ANDREOZZI]: It is multifaceted. One for
officer safety. It is more safe for me to have him out of his
vehicle and in mine.
No. 2, if I’m suspecting some type of criminal
activity is afoot, I like the two occupants to be separated
so they don’t know the responses of each party.
And No. 3, if I’m conducting law enforcement
checks while I can speak to the operator, I’m not
prolonging anything. I can accomplish more by doing
that.”
***
“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: You felt unsafe at the moment
you took the driver out of his driver seat?
“[OFFICER ANDREOZZI]: I wouldn’t use that adjective
but it was uncomfortable.
- 36 -
Examination of the record and decision reveals that, after Officer Andreozzi
approached the passenger-side window of the vehicle, he spoke with Mr. Li,
collected the vehicle registration, proof of insurance, and occupant driver’s licenses,
and noticed “a slight odor of fresh marijuana” as well as Mr. Li and Mr. Kuang’s
nervousness. Officer Andreozzi directed Mr. Li to sit in the front seat of his police
cruiser because, he testified, “[i]t is more safe for me to have him out of his vehicle
and in mine.” However, the trial justice discredited Officer Andreozzi’s testimony
in this regard and was not persuaded that safety concerns motivated the escalated
level of detention. The trial justice noted that Officer Andreozzi testified that he felt
uncomfortable rather than unsafe; and the trial justice further inferred that Officer
Andreozzi did not behave like someone motivated by safety concerns: He directed
“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: You placed him in the
passenger seat?
“[OFFICER ANDREOZZI]: Yes.
“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Was he free to leave your
passenger seat if he wanted to?
“[OFFICER ANDREOZZI]: No.”
This Court conducts “an independent examination of the record to determine if [the
defendant’s] rights have been violated.” State v. Casas, 900 A.2d 1120, 1129 (R.I.
2006) (quoting State v. Abdullah, 730 A.2d 1074, 1077 (R.I. 1999)). Thus, my
analysis of the reasonableness of Officer Andreozzi’s response to the unfolding
circumstances accounts for the fact that Officer Andreozzi detained Mr. Li in his
police cruiser.
- 37 -
Mr. Li to sit in the front seat of his cruiser without patting Mr. Li for weapons and
without having first checked his criminal history. The trial justice also did not find
persuasive Officer Andreozzi’s additional justifications for placing Mr. Li in the
cruiser. It was within the discretion of the trial justice, as the factfinder, to weigh
Officer Andreozzi’s testimony and not to be persuaded by it. Accordingly, after
analyzing the totality of circumstances and conducting the appropriate balancing
test, the trial justice supportably found that Officer Andreozzi detained Mr. Li in the
cruiser—from which Mr. Li was not free to leave—as an impermissible safety
precaution taken to facilitate a detour from the mission of the traffic stop.
Having determined that Officer Andreozzi deviated from the mission of the
traffic stop, the trial justice appropriately turned to considering whether Officer
Andreozzi otherwise had a particularized and objective basis to justify prolonging
the traffic stop. See United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18 (1981) (“But the
essence of all that has been written is that the totality of the circumstances—the
whole picture—must be taken into account. Based upon that whole picture the
detaining officers must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the
particular person stopped of criminal activity.”). The trial justice correctly reviewed
the testimony concerning events leading up to that point and found that, during the
six minutes leading up to Mr. Li’s detention in the police cruiser, Mr. Li and Mr.
Kuang complied with Officer Andreozzi’s requests; lacked any signs of aggressive
- 38 -
behavior; and failed to make furtive gestures or act evasively. Officer Andreozzi
therefore relied on three articulable facts, based on his observations and patterns of
behavior by drug traffickers, to justify prolonging the traffic stop: (1) Mr. Li and Mr.
Kuang’s nervous behavior; (2) Mr. Li and Mr. Kuang’s decision to travel on a public
highway that reputedly constitutes a “drug trafficking corridor”; and (3) the slight
odor of marijuana.
In my view, the trial justice correctly concluded that the whole picture
presented by these three factors alone did not provide a sufficient basis to suspect
that Mr. Li and Mr. Kuang were engaged in drug trafficking, thus reasonably
permitting Officer Andreozzi to prolong the traffic stop.2
2
The state asserts and the majority concludes that, rather than engaging in a totality
of circumstances analysis, the trial justice considered each factor in his
reasonable-suspicion analysis individually and that the United States Supreme Court
prohibited this analytical method in United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002).
While I agree that the Supreme Court rejected a divide-and-conquer approach to
evaluating the totality of circumstances in a reasonable suspicion analysis, the
Court’s holding is clearly specific to the methodology applied by appellate courts
rather than addressing the way that trial courts perform their fact-finding role. Id. at
274, 276-77. Appellate courts review reasonable suspicion and probable-cause
determinations de novo, but appellate courts also “review findings of historical fact
only for clear error and * * * give due weight to inferences drawn from those facts
by resident judges and local law enforcement officers.” Ornelas v. United States,
517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); Casas, 900 A.2d at 1129.
A trial justice does not function as a rubber stamp but assesses the state’s
evidence and carefully considers whether the state has met its burden of proof. See
State v. Tavarez, 572 A.2d 276, 279 (R.I. 1990). It is true that, when making findings
of fact about the events leading up to a stop or search in a particular case, trial justices
evaluate and weigh the inferences and deductions drawn by trained police officers.
United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418 (1981) (“[T]he evidence thus collected
- 39 -
With respect to the first factor, defendants’ nervous behavior, it is accepted
that nervousness can be considered as part of a reasonable-suspicion analysis.
Guzman, 752 A.2d at 4. Officer Andreozzi testified that he was trained to look for
signs of nervousness and did observe nervousness in Mr. Li and Mr. Kuang. The
trial justice credited this observation but gave it minimal weight when viewing the
totality of the circumstances, particularly as Officer Andreozzi conceded that
virtually all individuals become nervous when stopped by the police. Based on this
testimony, the trial justice was not clearly wrong to discount the significance of Mr.
Li and Mr. Kuang’s nervous behavior.
With respect to Mr. Li and Mr. Kuang’s decision to travel on I-95, it is
accepted that location can also be considered as part of a reasonable-suspicion
analysis. State v. Ditren, 126 A.3d 414, 420 (R.I. 2015). Officer Andreozzi testified
that, from his experience, he knows that there are large amounts of narcotics on I-95.
This Court will “give due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident
must be seen and weighed not in terms of library analysis by scholars, but as
understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement.”). However, trial
justices are not required to accept an officer’s testimony or inferences
unquestioningly, nor are they required to be entirely persuaded by it. See, e.g., United
States v. Pavao, No. 1:22-CR-00034-MSM-PAS, 2023 WL 3934555, at *1 (D.R.I.
June 9, 2023). Moreover, when two permissible views of evidence exist, a trial
justice’s choice between either view cannot constitute clear error. See Anderson v.
City of Bessemer City, North Carolina, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985). Accordingly, a
trial justice who is not fully persuaded by a police officer’s testimony, or who
perceives contradictions in that testimony, does not clearly err by assigning less than
full weight to that testimony.
- 40 -
judges and local law enforcement officers.” Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690,
699 (1996). Nevertheless, it is not clearly erroneous to assign little weight to an
inference that someone from out of state traveling on I-95 might be a drug trafficker.
Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 441 (1980) (concluding that an agent of the Drug
Enforcement Administration could not reasonably suspect criminal activity where
“circumstances describe a very large category of presumably innocent travelers”);
see also United States v. Jerez, 108 F.3d 684, 694 (7th Cir. 1997) (finding no
reasonable suspicion when multiple “articulated characteristics could be ascribed
generally to innocent travelers”). Accordingly, I cannot conclude that the trial
justice erred in assigning only minimal weight to the inference drawn from the fact
that Mr. Li and Mr. Kuang were traveling on I-95.
Finally, with respect to the slight odor of marijuana, it is undisputed that, at
the time this traffic stop occurred, it was no longer criminal (1) for adults in Rhode
Island to possess one ounce or less of marijuana, see § 21-28-4.01(c)(2)(iii), as
amended by P.L. 2012, ch. 221, § 1 and P.L. 2012, ch. 233 § 1; or (2) for a person
with a valid medical marijuana prescription to possess marijuana in Rhode Island.
See § 21-28-4.01(c)(1). Officer Andreozzi testified that he was trained to detect the
odor of fresh marijuana and that he detected a slight, but not strong, odor of
marijuana after he stopped Mr. Li and Mr. Kuang and approached the vehicle. He
- 41 -
also testified that he was seeing more marijuana usage in motor vehicles since
decriminalization.
The defendants argued, and the trial justice agreed, that the slight odor of
marijuana, without further investigation or questioning, did not provide Officer
Andreozzi with reasonable suspicion that the vehicle contained a criminal amount
of marijuana. I cannot say that the trial justice erred in drawing this conclusion.
Based on the tableau that began to emerge as Officer Andreozzi spoke to Mr. Li
immediately following the traffic stop, it was reasonable for his focus to shift when
he detected the slight odor of marijuana. United States v. Chhien, 266 F.3d 1, 6 (1st
Cir. 2001). However, because possession by an adult of one ounce or less of
marijuana is not criminal, and because it is no longer criminal for a person with a
valid medical marijuana prescription to possess marijuana, I agree with the trial
justice that our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence required Officer Andreozzi to
“increase the scope of his investigation by degrees” before calling for a sniffer dog,
thereby prolonging the traffic stop. United States v. Ruidiaz, 529 F.3d 25, 29 (1st
Cir. 2008) (quoting Chhien, 266 F.3d at 6). Moreover, like the trial justice, I also
acknowledge the prevalence of legal marijuana in contemporary society and agree
that, when viewed together under the totality of circumstances, the three factors
- 42 -
articulated by Officer Andreozzi did not constitute reasonable suspicion sufficient
to prolong the traffic stop. 3
After my independent examination of the record, I cannot conclude that the
trial justice was clearly wrong in determining that Officer Andreozzi lacked
reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing at the time he placed Mr. Li in the
3
Considering the recent legislative developments legalizing recreational marijuana
in Rhode Island, I respectfully but unequivocally disagree with the decision to allow
law enforcement officers to presume that an individual possesses an illegal quantity
of an otherwise legal substance. Cf. United States v. Jones, 606 F.3d 964, 968 (8th
Cir. 2010) (Loken, C.J., concurring) (“But the question here is whether anyone
reasonably suspected of having a firearm in his or her pocket or purse may be
forcibly stopped and searched when the police have no particularized reason to
suspect that the person is unlawfully carrying a weapon.”).
I also note that, given the evolving landscape with respect to the legalization
of marijuana, it is clear that courts across the United States are struggling to articulate
an appropriate approach to considering the implications of the odor of marijuana and
analyses of reasonable suspicion and probable cause. See State v. Nagel, 232 A.3d
1081, 1087 (Vt. 2020) (holding that police officers lacked reasonable suspicion to
justify a search of a motor vehicle after smelling the odor of marijuana);
Commonwealth v. Daniel, 985 N.E.2d 843, 848-49 (Mass. 2013) (holding that the
police lacked probable cause to search a defendant’s vehicle for marijuana after an
officer smelled the odor of marijuana and found two small bags of marijuana on the
defendant’s person); Commonwealth v. Barr, 266 A.3d 25, 41 (Pa. 2021) (holding
that police officers lacked probable cause to search a vehicle based solely on the
odor of marijuana). But cf. State v. Tibbles, 236 P.3d 885, 888 (Wash. 2010)
(holding that police officers lacked exigent circumstances sufficient to justify
warrantless search of a defendant’s vehicle, despite the fact that they smelled the
odor of marijuana, which created probable cause); People v. Zuniga, 372 P.3d 1052,
1059 (Colo. 2016) (holding that police officers may consider the odor of marijuana
in analyzing whether probable cause exists, despite its legality under state law).
Based on the presumption that law enforcement officers know and understand the
current state of the law in a given jurisdiction, police officers must also employ a
contemporary approach when considering, and responding to, the odor of marijuana
as it arises during a traffic stop.
- 43 -
police cruiser and thereby prolonged the traffic stop. Accordingly, I respectfully
dissent.
- 44 -
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
Licht Judicial Complex
250 Benefit Street
Providence, RI 02903
OPINION COVER SHEET
State v. Junjie Li.
Title of Case
State v. Zhong Kuang.
No. 2021-153-C.A. (K2/19-513A)
Case Number
No. 2021-154-C.A. (K2/19-513B)
Date Opinion Filed July 27, 2023
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and
Justices
Long, JJ.
Written By Associate Justice Erin Lynch Prata
Source of Appeal Kent County Superior Court
Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Daniel A. Procaccini
For State:
Mariana Ormonde
Attorney(s) on Appeal Department of Attorney General
For Defendant
John L. Calcagni, III, Esq.
SU-CMS-02A (revised November 2022)