United States v. Perkins

In United States v. Perkins, No. 23-40356 (5th Cir. July 11, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court’s denial of Perkins’ suppression motion. In so doing, the court rejected a few arguments that we highlight here.

Background: A park ranger stopped Perkins’ car based on an invalid temporary tag. After approaching, the ranger learned that Perkins did not have a driver’s license. A second ranger arrived, and he opened the front passenger door to see in because the “front passenger window was made of tape, making it difficult for him to see into the car.” As he opened the door, the ranger saw an empty, capped syringe and “little buds of marijuana.” Although their canine did not alert to the car, the rangers conducted a search and found methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, and a scale.

Issue 1: The rangers were justified in searching the entire car as soon as they saw marijuana inside. See California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 569–72 (1991); Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938, 940 (1996).

Issue 2: The canine’s failure to alert “is not dispositive,” see United States v. Villafranco-Elizondo, 897 F.3d 635, 644–45 (5th Cir. 2018), and it “did not dissipate” the probable cause the officers already had based on their observation of marijuana in the car.

Issue 3: The ranger’s opening of the passenger door was not “the relevant moment of Fourth Amendment analysis.” Yes, such an event can trigger the Fourth Amendment, see United States v. Hunt, 253 F.3d 227, 231–32 (5th Cir. 2001), but after a valid traffic stop, an officer can open a door “to visually inspect an occupant without any additional suspicion.” See United States v. Meredith, 480 F.3d 366, 369–71 (5th Cir. 2007).