United States v. Chartier, No. 14-1421 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence after pleading guilty to possession of pseudoephedrine knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(c)(2). The court concluded that the initial traffic stop was lawful under the Fourth Amendment where the officer had an articulable and objectively reasonable suspicion that a motorist without a valid license was driving the vehicle; the duration and scope of the traffic stop were reasonable where, once the officer saw the muriatic acid and airline tubing in the vehicle, he had the reasonable suspicion necessary to expand the scope of the traffic stop and make further inquiry to determine whether the items had been purchased for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine; it was reasonable to walk a drug detection dog around the vehicle; the protective pat-down search was lawful where the officer had a reasonable suspicion that defendant was involved with drug manufacturing; and the dog's alert on the vehicle was sufficient to establish probable cause that defendant himself possessed, or had possessed, illegal drugs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. The police had an articulable and objectively reasonable suspicion that a motorist without a valid license was operating a vehicle, and the officer's decision to make a traffic stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment; the officer had the necessary suspicion to expand the scope and range of the stop once he saw muriatic acid and tubing in the car, and the use of a drug dog was permissible; the officer's knowledge of defendant's history and the facts of the stop justified a pat-down search for purposes of officer safety; fact that the officer could not find drugs in the car after the dog alerted justified a search of defendant's person since those facts made it more likely that any drugs that had been in the car were on defendant's person.
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.