United States v. Stanbridge, No. 15-2686 (7th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseStanbridge was walking to his car carrying a duffel bag when Quincy police officers passed. Stanbridge looked surprised, so they shadowed him, hoping to catch him in a traffic violation. After driving a short distance, Stanbridge activated his turn signal, pulled over, and parked parallel to the curb. Officer Bangert, the driver, had not witnessed any traffic violation. Officer Hodges later reported that Stanbridge had turned left without signaling. Unaware of his partner’s observation, Bangert stopped behind Stanbridge and activated his flashers because Stanbridge had not activated his signal 100 feet before pulling over. Stanbridge had a valid driver’s license, but a criminal history check showed “priors.” Bangert requested a drug-sniffing dog. Stanbridge’s only drug conviction was for marijuana possession, 11 years earlier when he was 17. The dog arrived 10 minutes later; its alert led to the discovery of methamphetamine, marijuana, and pills inside Stanbridge’s duffel bag. He confessed to acting as a “middleman.” Stanbridge was charged with conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. 846, 841(a)(1), and possession with intent to distribute. The court denied Stanbridge’s motion to suppress, finding the left turn irrelevant, but reasoning that the Illinois Vehicle Code is ambiguous concerning whether a driver must signal for 100 feet before pulling to a curb, and finding Bangert’s belief reasonable, if mistaken. The Seventh Circuit vacated, stating that Bangert's belief was not objectively reasonable.
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.