US v. Christopher Novell McCauley

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00423-TDS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999818042].. [14-4548]

Appeal: 14-4548

Doc: 51

Filed: 05/10/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4548

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER NOVELL MCCAULEY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00423-TDS-1)

Submitted:

May 28, 2015

Decided:

May 10, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney,
Terry M. Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney, WinstonSalem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4548

Doc: 51

Filed: 05/10/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Christopher Novell McCauley pleaded guilty to possession of
a

firearm

by

§ 922(g)(1)
district

a

convicted

(2012),

court’s

felon,

conditioned

denial

of

his

seized following a traffic stop.

in

on

violation

his

motion

right
to

of
to

18

U.S.C.

appeal

suppress

the

evidence

The district court sentenced

McCauley to 110 months in prison, and he now appeals.

For the

reasons that follow, we affirm.
McCauley

challenges

the

district

court’s

conclusion

that

the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the
traffic stop to conduct a canine sniff.

When considering the

denial of a motion to suppress, “we review the district court’s
factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de
novo.”

United States v. Green, 740 F.3d 275, 277 (4th Cir.

2014).

We construe the evidence in the light most favorable to

the government, the prevailing party below.

Id.

“It is well established that the temporary detention of
individuals

during

the

stop

of

an

automobile

by

the

police

constitutes a seizure, no matter how brief the detention or how
limited its purpose.”

United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 328,

335 (4th Cir. 2008) (alterations and internal quotation marks
omitted).

During a routine traffic stop, an officer may request

a driver’s license and registration, perform a computer check,
issue a citation, and even conduct a canine sniff “if performed
2

Appeal: 14-4548

Doc: 51

within

the

citation.”
extend

a

Filed: 05/10/2016

time

reasonably

Pg: 3 of 4

required

to

issue

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
traffic

stop

beyond

this

scope,

a

traffic

In order to

however,

a

police

officer “must possess a justification for doing so other than
the

initial

first

traffic

place”

and,

violation

that

prompted

therefore,

must

have

the

either

stop
the

in

the

driver’s

consent or a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity.

Id. at

336; see Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1614-16
(2015)

(absent

reasonable

suspicion,

officer

may

not

extend

otherwise-completed traffic stop to conduct canine sniff).
An officer must have “at least a minimal level of objective
justification”
inchoate

and

activity.”

and

“must

be

unparticularized

able

to

articulate

suspicion

or

hunch

more
of

than

an

criminal

Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123-24 (2000)

(internal quotation marks omitted).

The detaining officer must

“either articulate why a particular behavior is suspicious or
logically demonstrate, given the surrounding circumstances, that
the behavior is likely to be indicative of some more sinister
activity than may appear at first glance.”
Williams,

808

F.3d

238,

246

(4th

Cir.

United States v.

2015).

Though

each

relevant fact articulated by the officer “need not on its own
eliminate every innocent traveler,” the facts “must in their
totality serve to eliminate a substantial portion of innocent
travelers.”

Id. at 246 (emphasis and internal quotation marks
3

Appeal: 14-4548

Doc: 51

omitted).

Filed: 05/10/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

Thus, we evaluate the facts “both separately and in

the aggregate, recognizing that our inquiry must account for the
totality of the circumstances, rather than employ a divide-andconquer

analysis.”

omitted).

Id.

at

247

(internal

quotation

marks

In conducting our assessment, we give “due weight to

common sense judgments reached by officers in light of their
experience and training.”

United States v. Perkins, 363 F.3d

317, 321 (4th Cir. 2004).
We

have

reviewed

the

record

and

the

relevant

legal

authorities and conclude that the district court did not err in
finding
suspicion

that,
to

here,
extend

the
the

officer
stop

to

had

sufficient

conduct

the

reasonable

canine

sniff.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4