US v. Elijah Hearn, No. 11-4399 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4399 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ELIJAH ELDON HEARNS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. (2:10-cr-00152-DCN-1) Submitted: December 6, 2011 Before AGEE and Circuit Judge. WYNN, Circuit Decided: Judges, and December 15, 2011 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Russell Warren Mace, III, THE MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Alston C. Badger, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Elijah sentence Eldon imposed possession Hearns appeals the following his guilty intent to distribute with Methylenedioxymethamphetamine plea ( MDMA ) and ninety-seven-month to one a quantity of quantity of a count of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), (b)(1)(D) (West Supp. 2011); and one count of entering the United States at a time and place other than one designated by immigration officers, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1), (2) (2006). in On appeal, Hearns argues that the district court erred denying his motion to suppress MDMA and marijuana seized after Hearns was detained pending the arrival of a drug-sniffing canine following a routine traffic stop. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We review the factual findings underlying a district court s ruling on a motion to suppress for clear error and the court s legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Kelly, 592 F.3d 586, 589 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3374 (2010). When evaluating the denial of a suppression motion, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the prevailing party below. Id. An automobile stop is a seizure falling under the Fourth Amendment s protection. 806, 809-10 (1996). Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. Observing a traffic violation provides 2 sufficient justification offending vehicle traditional for incidents for as of a police officer as takes long a it routine traffic to to detain the perform the stop. States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 328, 335 (4th Cir. 2008). United A police officer may extend the detention beyond the scope of a routine traffic stop if the driver consents or officer has Id. at 336. reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. the To satisfy the reasonable suspicion requirement, a police officer must simply point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, evince more than an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch of criminal activity. Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Hearns challenges the district court s conclusion that reasonable suspicion existed to detain Hearns pending the arrival of a canine unit following the issuance of a warning ticket to Hearns for following too closely. We hold that the district that court did not err in determining the police officer had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based on the totality of the circumstances. When the officer stopped Hearns, he commonly vehicle repairs, noticed a strong despite a smell lack 3 of visible associated repairs to with the vehicle. * The floorboard of the car was littered with caffeinated and energy drinks, and Hearns appeared to be tired and nervous. Further, Hearns provided a highly unusual explanation for how he came to possess the car, and was unsure whether it was a rental. Taken together, this evidence was sufficient, as the district court stated, to lead a reasonably trained officer transporting to suspect contraband in that an defendant altered was involved vehicle over in long distances, attempting to make few, if any stops along the way. Thus the officer had reasonable suspicion justifying Hearns s twenty to twenty-five minute detention following the officer s issuance of the warning ticket and pending the arrival of a drug-detecting canine. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * The officer had specialized compartments and drug trafficking trends. 4 training in hidden
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.
