United States v. Travis Wilson

In United States v. Wilson, No. 22-20100 (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to deny Wilson’s suppression motion without holding an evidentiary hearing.

Background: Wilson was the passenger in a vehicle that officers stopped. The driver had not signaled a left turn until the vehicle was already in the intersection, and the vehicle had not “maintained a single lane while completing the turn.” After the stop, officers saw a pistol in the vehicle and had a canine “sniff” the vehicle. The canine alerted, and the officers searched the vehicle, resulting in the discovery of methamphetamine. Wilson filed a motion to suppress, which the district court denied without holding an evidentiary hearing.

Holding 1: Officers were justified in stopping the vehicle because Texas Transportation Code § 545.104(b) requires drivers to “signal continuously for not less than the last 100 feet of movement of the vehicle before the turn.” Because the driver had only signaled after entering the intersection, officers “had reasonable suspicion that the driver committed a traffic violation, justifying the initial stop.”

Holding 2: Officers had reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop to allow their canine to “sniff” the vehicle. Wilson and the driver had both denied having any weapons in the vehicle, so once officers saw a pistol “in plain view,” they had “reasonable suspicion that the vehicle might contain contraband.”

Holding 3: The canine’s sniff was not an unlawful search, even though the dog “jumped into the car through the passenger window.” Because the officer did not “encourage or facilitate the dog’s jump,” see United States v. Sharp, 689 F.3d 616, 619–20 (6th Cir. 2012), there was no Fourth Amendment violation.

Holding 4: The district court did not err by declining to hold an evidentiary hearing. “Hearings on a motion to suppress are only required where the movant alleges sufficient facts which, if proven, would justify relief.” United States v. Smith, 977 F.3d 431, 434 (5th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Here, Wilson pointed out potential inconsistencies in the officers’ written reports, but “the district court did not base its decision on this evidence and, based on the factual record discussed above, Wilson’s proffered inconsistencies would not justify relief in any event.”