F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
December 18, 2006
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
Case No. 05-6399
v. (D.C. NO. CR-05-107-M)
(W.D. Okla.)
ANDY NELSON KING,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge, SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge, and ROBINSON,
District Judge.**
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Defendant Andy Nelson King was convicted of possession of pseudoephedrine
with knowledge that it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrine of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
**
Honorable Julie A. Robinson, U.S. District Judge, District of Kansas, sitting by
designation.
21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2), and possession of 20 grams of methamphetamine with intent to
distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced defendant
to 120 months’ imprisonment. Defendant appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion to suppress. Defendant challenges the validity of the initial traffic stop, arguing
that Undersheriff King lacked reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity had
occurred, was occurring, or was about to occur. We exercise jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
I. Background
The district court conducted a suppression hearing and made detailed findings of
fact that are supported by the record but not germane to this court’s decision.1 On May
16, 2005, Undersheriff Tim King of Cotton County, Oklahoma received information
from a proven reliable source that she had witnessed a tall Native American or Hispanic
male purchasing certain items at a store, items that are commonly used to manufacture
methamphetamine. The witness further reported to Undersheriff King that she had
watched the man leave the store and get in a pickup truck. The witness followed this
truck, maintained contact with King by cellular telephone, and gave King continuous
contemporaneous information on the route and location of the truck. The witness also
gave King a description of the truck. Based on this information, King waited for the
truck at the intersection of Interstate 44 and Highway 36, near mile-marker 1 in
1
After additional evidence was obtained, defendant moved to reopen the
suppression hearing, and a second hearing was held. The district court reaffirmed its
order denying defendant’s motion to suppress.
-2-
Oklahoma. When King located the truck based on the witness’s description, he used his
radar gun to measure its speed at 73 miles per hour in a 70 mile-per-hour zone. King
immediately activated his overhead lights and initiated a traffic stop.
In the course of the traffic stop, King identified the driver as Kris Deven
Youngstedt, a white male not matching the description of the man observed by the
witness, and identified the passenger as defendant Andy Nelson King, who did match
the description of a tall Native American or Hispanic male. During the course of the
traffic stop, Youngstedt consented to a search of the truck. The search yielded a bag of
methamphetamine, as well as several boxes of Sudafed, several bottles of liquid Heet,
thirteen cans of Prestone starting fluid, a gallon-size jug of Coleman camping fuel,
tubing, a propane tank and camouflage clothing. All of these items are ingredients or
instruments that are frequently used in the manufacture of methamphetamine.
II. Standard of Review
We review a district court order denying a motion to suppress, accepting the
district court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous, and viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to those findings. United States v. Botero-Ospina, 71 F.3d 783,
785 (10th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. McSwain, 29 F.3d 558, 560 (10th Cir.
1994); United States v. Pena, 920 F.2d 1509, 1513 (10th Cir. 1990)). We review the
district court’s determination of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment de novo.
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S. Ct. 1657, 1663, 134 L. Ed. 2d 911
(1996).
-3-
The law pertaining to traffic stops is well established. United States v. DeGasso,
369 F.3d 1139, 1143 (10th Cir. 2004). The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S Const. amend. IV. “Temporary detention of
individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only for a brief
period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a ‘seizure’ of ‘persons’ within the meaning
of this provision.” United States v. Whren, 517 U.S. 806, 809–10, 116 S. Ct. 1769,
1772, 135 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1996). Because an ordinary traffic stop is more analogous to
an investigative detention than a custodial arrest, we analyze such stops under the
principles articulated in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889
(1968). United States v. Botero-Ospina, 71 F.3d 783, 786 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied,
518 U.S. 1007, 116 S. Ct. 2529, 135 L. Ed. 2d 1052 (1996). “To determine the
reasonableness of an investigative detention, we make a dual inquiry, asking first
‘whether the officer’s action was justified at its inception,’ and second ‘whether it was
reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the
first place.’” Id. (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 20, 88 S. Ct. at 1879).
In this case, we need only to address the first inquiry—whether Undersherriff
King’s initial stop of the vehicle was justified. Because petitioner concedes that
Undersheriff King’s subsequent conduct was reasonably related in scope to the
circumstances which justified the initial stop, we need not address the second inquiry
under Terry. See Appellant’s Brief at 5–6.
-4-
III. Analysis
A traffic stop is valid under the Fourth Amendment when probable cause or
reasonable articulable suspicion exists to believe a traffic violation has occurred.
DeGasso, 369 F.3d at 1143 (citing Whren, 517 U.S. at 810, 116 S. Ct. at 1772 (probable
cause); Botero-Ospina, 71 F.3d at 787 (reasonable articulable suspicion)). The
constitutional reasonableness of a traffic stop does not depend on the actual motivations
of the officer involved. Whren, 517 U.S. at 813, 116 S. Ct. at 1774. The officer’s
subjective motives for stopping the vehicle are irrelevant to the inquiry. Id. at 813, 116
S. Ct. at 1774 (“Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth
Amendment analysis.”); Botero-Ospina, 71 F.3d at 787. “Our sole inquiry is whether
this particular motorist violated ‘any one of the multitude of applicable traffic and
equipment regulations’ of the jurisdiction.” Botero-Ospina, 71 F.3d at 787 (quoting
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 661, 99 S. Ct. 1391, 1400, 59 L. Ed. 2d 660 (1979)).
Under this standard, Undersherriff King was justified in his stop of the vehicle in
which defendant was traveling. Undersherriff King testified that using a radar gun, he
measured the vehicle as traveling 73 miles per hour in a 70 mile-per-hour zone. He
further testified that he believed a traffic violation had occurred because of the vehicle’s
speed.2 After stopping the vehicle, Undersheriff King advised Youngstedt that he had
stopped him for speeding, and that he was going to give him a warning for this traffic
2
Under Oklahoma law, “no person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed in
excess of the . . . maximum limit[].” Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 47, § 11-801(B).
-5-
infraction. While Undersheriff King further testified that he would have stopped the
vehicle even if it had not been speeding based upon the information that he received
from the witness, his subjective beliefs are irrelevant to the inquiry. Although the
district court analyzed whether King had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle based
on the information from the witness, “[w]e are free to affirm a district court decision on
any grounds for which there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law, even
grounds not relied upon by the district court.” United States v. Sandoval, 29 F.3d 537,
542 n.6 (10th Cir. 1994). Therefore, we find that because Undersherriff King had a
reasonable articulable suspicion that a traffic violation had occurred or was occurring
based on the speeding violation, the traffic stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
The district court’s denial of the motion to suppress was proper. The judgment is
affirmed.
Entered for the Court
Julie A. Robinson
District Judge
-6-