United States v. Betts, No. 23-1012 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Chad Betts's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop. Betts, a felon, was found in possession of a firearm and ammunition after a drug dog alerted to his vehicle during a traffic stop. He appealed the district court's decision, arguing that reasonable suspicion did not exist to extend the traffic stop.
The court found that the officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop based on a combination of factors: Betts’s quick speaking, profuse sweating, and rapid, shallow breathing; his possession of a torch-style lighter, which the officer knew was often used to heat drugs like methamphetamine; Betts’s unusual travel plans and his history of drug-related offenses. These factors, viewed as a whole, justified the officer's suspicion that Betts was in possession of illegal drugs by the time the officer left Betts seated in the patrol car and walked back to Betts’s vehicle to question the passenger. As a result, the court concluded that the extended stop was justified, and the district court correctly denied the motion to suppress the evidence obtained during this stop.
Court Description: [Shepherd, Author, with Kelly and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The state trooper prolonged the traffic stop by returning to defendant's vehicle to question his passenger, and the district court erred in considering the information gleaned from the passenger in determining whether the officer had reasonable suspicion; however, even without this information from the passenger, the trooper had enough information based on defendant's appearance and behavior, the fact that he was on parole for drug activity and was headed for a destination known as a drug source and his travel plans and movements, to form a reasonable suspicion that defendant was in possession of illegal drugs; the evidence seized during the subsequent search was admissible. Judge Kelly, 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.