US v. Heywood Smith, IV, No. 11-4154 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4154 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. HEYWOOD SMITH, IV, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (2:10-cr-00066-1) Submitted: November 7, 2011 Decided: December 1, 2011 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, Lex A. Coleman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Michael B. Hissam, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Heywood Smith, IV, pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after sustaining convictions for misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 922(g)(6) (2006), reserving his right to appeal the district court s denial of his suppression motion. The district court sentenced twenty months of imprisonment and he now appeals. Smith to Finding no error, we affirm. Smith argues on appeal that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized after a dog trained in narcotics detection alerted during an inspection of his vehicle considering following a a ruling on traffic a stop motion to for speeding. suppress, we In review conclusions of law de novo and underlying factual findings for clear error. Cir. 2007) denied a United States v. Buckner, 473 F.3d 551, 553 (4th (citation defendant s omitted). When suppression the motion, district we court construe evidence in the light most favorable to the government. has the United States v. Grossman, 400 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2005). It is well established that the temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police . . . constitutes a seizure . . . [and] an automobile stop is thus subject to the constitutional imperative that it not be unreasonable under the circumstances. 2 United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 328, 335 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). sufficient Observing offending justification vehicle traditional request a as long incidents of a a traffic violation police for (citations omitted). may for a officer as takes it routine to detain the perform to traffic provides the stop. Id. During a routine traffic stop, an officer driver s license and registration, perform a computer check, issue a citation, and perform a canine sniff if performed within the time reasonably required to issue a traffic Id. (citations omitted). citation. Moreover, although the maximum acceptable length of a routine traffic stop cannot be stated with mathematical precision, the inquiry is focused on whether the detention was longer than necessary to accomplish the purposes of the detention. Id. (citation omitted). In order to extend a traffic stop beyond this scope, a police possess Id. officer must reasonable either suspicion ensure that the illegal driver s consent activity is or afoot. Therefore, the officer must have at least a minimal level of objective justification and must be able to articulate more than an inchoate and criminal activity. unparticularized suspicion or hunch of Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123-24 (2000) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Courts assess whether an officer has articulated reasonable suspicion for a stop under the totality of the circumstances, giving due 3 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) (citation omitted). The Court will credit the practical experience of officers who observe on a daily basis what transpires on the street. 154 (4th Id. (quoting United States v. Lender, 985 F.2d 151, evidence Cir. 1993)). offered commonsensical, cognizant of to Moreover, demonstrate focused both on context reasonable the and [j]udicial evidence the review suspicion as particular a of the must be whole, experience and of officers charged with the ongoing tasks of law enforcement. Branch, 537 F.3d at 337. With these standards in mind, we have thoroughly reviewed the record, and conclude that even if the traffic stop was extended beyond the scope of a routine traffic stop, the district court did not err in concluding that the officers articulated reasonable suspicion of illegal activity to conduct an inspection of Smith s vehicle using a canine officer. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the Court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
