United States v. Martin, No. 13-1073 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseClaimant appealed the district court's order denying his post-trial motion to suppress evidence obtained as the result of a traffic stop. The government had instituted a civil in rem forfeiture lawsuit against the $45,000.00 found in claimant's vehicle but claimant was not charged with any crime. The arresting officer had pulled claimant's vehicle over for violation of Nebraska Revised Statute Sec., 60-399(2), which provided that license plates be plainly visible, but the officer was clear in his trial testimony that he was able to read "Utah" while still traveling a safe distance behind claimant on the highway. The court concluded that the district court clearly erred in characterizing the facts in its order on claimant's motion for reconsideration; that claimant drove a vehicle with out-of-state license plates and exited from the highway at an unlikely exit for cross-country travelers did not provide the officer with the requisite level of suspicion to stop claimant; and therefore, the initial traffic stop violated claimant's Fourth Amendment rights and any evidence obtained as a result should have been suppressed. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court erred in denying defendant's post-trial motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a traffic stop; where the arresting officer could read the defendant's license plate from a distance of 100 feet, he did not have probable cause to believe that the partial obstruction of the plate allowed him to make a traffic stop under Nebraska Revised Statute Sec. 60-399(2); the facts that defendant had out-of-state plates and exited at an unlikely exit for cross-country travelers did not provide the officer with the requisite level of suspicion to stop defendant; as a result, the evidence seized during the traffic stop had to be suppressed. Chief Judge Riley, dissenting.
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.