United States v. Phillips
In United States v. Phillips, No. 22-50745 (5th Cir. Jan. 29, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit rejected the defendant’s three arguments, holding that (1) officers had probable cause to justify their search of his truck, (2) officers had suspected Phillips of “drug intoxication,” so their choice to conduct a dog sniff of his truck was reasonable and did not unnecessarily delay the traffic stop, and (3) it was appropriate to deny Phillips credit for acceptance of responsibility.
Ruling 1: Phillips agreed that he had committed traffic violations and had an open beer can in his truck, but he argued those facts were insufficient to justify a search of his vehicle. The Fifth Circuit, however, held that the officers had probable cause of “drug intoxication,” so they were justified in searching for more than just the beer can, even though their drug dog had not alerted to the truck. The court noted that Philips had “failed to recognize the deputy’s initial attempts to pull him over,” admitted to drinking in his truck, proven “unable to follow directions,” and “exhibited slight nystagmus, or eye jerking.” Those facts were enough to create probable cause and allow a full search of the truck.
Ruling 2: The Fifth Circuit held that the dog sniff was a permissible part of the traffic stop rather than an unlawful prolonging of the stop. Despite a 21-minute wait for the dog to arrive, the court held that “the deputy acted diligently by calling for the dog sniff immediately after Phillips refused to consent to a search” of his truck.
Ruling 3: The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision not to grant Phillips credit for acceptance of responsibility under USSG § 3E1.1 because he had “instigated an oral confrontation and actively encouraged the other inmate to escalate the argument to physical violence” while Phillips was in jail awaiting sentencing. Phillips had objected because he was not the first physical aggressor, but his participation in the resulting physical altercation was sufficient to justify the denial of the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.