Shaw v. Schulte ( 2022 )

Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
PUBLISH Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 6, 2022
Christopher M. Wolpert
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
_________________________________
BLAINE FRANKLIN SHAW, individually
and on behalf of a class; SAMUEL JAMES
SHAW, individually and on behalf of a
class; JOSHUA BOSIRE, individually and
on behalf of a class,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
and
MARK ERICH; SHAWNA MALONEY,
individually and as the mother and natural
guardian of minors D.M. and M.M.,
Plaintiffs,
v. Nos. 21-3130, 21-3131
MASTER TROOPER DOUG SCHULTE,
in his individual capacity; TECHNICAL
TROOPER BRANDON McMILLAN, in
his individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellants,
and
HERMAN JONES, in his official capacity
as the Superintendent of the Kansas
Highway Patrol,
Defendant.
_________________________________
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 2
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Kansas
(D.C. No. 6:19-CV-01343-KHV-GEB)
_________________________________
Arthur S. Chalmers, Assistant Attorney General (Derek Schmidt, Attorney General, with
him on the briefs), Office of the Attorney General for the State of Kansas, Topeka,
Kansas, for Defendants – Appellants.
Joshua Pierson, American Civil Liberties Union and American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation of Kansas, Overland Park, Kansas (Sharon Brett, Kayla DeLoach, American
Civil Liberties Union and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Kansas,
Overland Park, Kansas; and Leslie Greathouse, Patrick McInerney, Madison Perry,
Spencer Fane LLP-KC, Kansas City, Missouri, with him on the brief), for Plaintiffs –
Appellees.
_________________________________
Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HARTZ and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
McHUGH, Circuit Judge.
_________________________________
This case, with claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, stems from traffic stops
of Blaine and Samuel Shaw and of Joshua Bosire that were prolonged for K-9
sweeps. Before the district court, Master Trooper Doug Schulte and Technical
Trooper Brandon McMillan moved for summary judgment based on qualified
immunity. The district court denied the motions. We affirm in part and reverse in
part.
Material issues of fact underly whether Troopers Schulte and McMillan had
arguable reasonable suspicion to extend the stops. Thus, the Shaws and Mr. Bosire
may proceed on their § 1983 claims against Trooper Schulte and Trooper McMillan,
respectively. We, however, reverse the district court’s denial of summary judgment
2
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 3
on two matters: (1) the scope of the Shaws’ claim and (2) Mr. Bosire’s claim against
Trooper Schulte.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW & JURISDICTION
We start by setting out the standard of review because it impacts the
framework for reaching factual assumptions for purposes of summary judgment.
Typically, we review a ruling on summary judgment de novo, and “need not defer to
factual findings rendered by the district court.” Lincoln v. BNSF Ry. Co., 900 F.3d
1166, 1180 (10th Cir. 2018) (quotation marks omitted). But the interlocutory nature
of an appeal from the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity
limits our jurisdiction to “the abstract legal questions of (1) whether, accepting the
facts the district court concluded a reasonable jury could find based on the summary
judgment evidence, those facts constitute a legal violation, and (2) whether that legal
violation was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Vette v. K-9 Unit
Deputy Sanders, 989 F.3d 1154, 1168 (10th Cir. 2021). Thus, we “usually must take
[a district court’s factual assumptions] as true” when conducting our appellate
review. Ralston v. Cannon, 884 F.3d 1060, 1066–67 (10th Cir. 2018). If, however,
“the district court fails to make its factual assumptions explicit, we may undertake a
cumbersome review of the record to ferret out facts that the district court likely
assumed.” Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147, 1154 (10th Cir. 2008) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Here, the district court resolved the motions for summary judgment through
text orders but later held a hearing at which it stated some reasons for denying
3
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 4
summary judgment. Thus, it is debatable whether the district court explicitly stated
the factual assumptions underlying its ruling. We need not resolve this matter,
however, because, reviewing the record de novo and viewing “the evidence in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party,” Clark v. Edmunds, 513 F.3d 1219,
1221–22 (10th Cir. 2008), we would reach most of the factual assumptions stated by
the district court during the hearing. And, to the extent our factual assumptions differ
slightly, the differences do not alter our dispositions.
II. BACKGROUND
This appeal involves a pair of roadside traffic stops along I-70 in western
Kansas that troopers extended to allow for inspection by dogs trained to detect
controlled substances—K-9 sweeps. We start by describing Trooper Schulte’s stop of
the Shaws, and then we describe Trooper McMillan’s stop of Mr. Bosire. Finally, we
discuss the procedural history of the litigation.
A. Trooper Schulte’s Stop of the Shaws
Blaine Shaw and Samuel Shaw were traveling westbound on I-70 in a minivan
registered to their father, with Blaine driving and Samuel sitting in the front
passenger seat.1 Trooper Schulte was also traveling westbound on I-70. Blaine
approached Trooper Schulte’s patrol car at a speed in excess of the posted speed
limit. Trooper Schulte activated his lights and siren before the Shaws’ minivan
reached Trooper Schulte’s position on the roadway. Blaine passed Trooper Schulte
1
Because Blaine and Samuel share the same last name, we refer to them by
their first names when discussing an action attributable to only one of them.
4
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 5
and then moved over to the right lane, approximately four to five center-dividing
dash-lines in front of Trooper Schulte. After about twenty seconds of maintaining
this distance, Blaine slowed for traffic in front of him and Trooper Schulte closed the
distance between the two vehicles to approximately two dash lines. The vehicles
maintained this distance for a little under thirty seconds until Blaine reached an exit
ramp. Blaine, followed by Trooper Schulte, exited I-70 and pulled over onto the
shoulder near the base of the exit ramp.
Before exiting his patrol car to speak with Blaine, Trooper Schulte learned the
vehicle was registered to Ronald Shaw. As Trooper Schulte approached the minivan
on foot, he peered into the rear of the minivan. During the interaction, Blaine
provided Trooper Schulte his driver’s license and an insurance card and informed
Trooper Schulte the vehicle belonged to his father, but that he was listed on the
insurance. Trooper Schulte returned to his patrol car, again peering into the rear of
the vehicle. In his declaration, Trooper Schulte described the vehicle as “crowded
with stuff” and “having a lived in look.”2 App. Vol. 2 at 80, 83. Back in his patrol
car, Trooper Schulte requested a records check on Blaine, which revealed a 2009
felony intent to distribute narcotics arrest.
Trooper Schulte reapproached the minivan, issued Blaine a citation, and
informed Blaine he was free to leave. Although Trooper Schulte initially started back
2
The Shaws dispute the minivan had a “lived-in look,” with Blaine attesting
the duo “were travelling with camping gear and our luggage but the van was clean.”
App. Vol. 3 at 95.
5
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 6
toward his patrol car, he reversed direction and inquired of Blaine if he could ask a
question, to which Blaine responded “Yeah.” Id. at 81. Trooper Schulte asked Blaine
where he was headed, to which Blaine indicated Denver to “see family.” Id. After
asking if there were any weapons in the vehicle and receiving a response in the
negative, Trooper Schulte asked for consent to search the vehicle. Blaine refused
consent, stating “I don’t consent to searches, I am [a] criminology major. It is like the
number one golden rule.” Id. at 82.
Trooper Schulte walked back toward his patrol car, informed a dispatcher that
Blaine had refused his request for a search, and requested a K-9 unit. In discussing
the refusal of the search with the dispatcher, Trooper Schulte mentioned Blaine’s
reason while making what a reasonable jury could describe as a smug facial gesture
in the process. Trooper Schulte also stated that Samuel was acting in a “nervous and
really jumpy” manner, keeping his hands in his lap and staring straight forward while
Trooper Schulte spoke with Blaine.3 Ex. 2a at 16:58–17:01.
A K-9 unit arrived at the scene approximately twenty-five minutes after Blaine
declined consent. Four minutes into the K-9 sweep, the dog alerted. The dog’s alert
prompted Trooper Schulte to conduct a search of the vehicle, during which he located
a Colorado medical marihuana card in Blaine’s name. Trooper Schulte believed the
Colorado medical marihuana card could be indicative of illegal conduct because
3
The Shaws dispute that Samuel acted in a nervous or suspicious manner,
describing his mannerism as “calm[],” “quiet[],” and “non-confrontational.” App.
Vol. 3 at 110; see also id. at 96.
6
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 7
Blaine was a citizen of Oklahoma. Trooper Schulte directed Blaine to a Kansas
Highway Patrol (“KHP”) headquarters so he could photocopy the medical marihuana
card. After photocopying the paperwork, Trooper Schulte permitted the Shaws to
resume their trip to Colorado.
B. Trooper McMillan’s Stop of Mr. Bosire
The record evidence timely placed before the district court presents a less clear
picture of the events leading to Trooper McMillan’s stop of Mr. Bosire. Trooper
McMillan and Trooper Schulte were at a Love’s gas station off I-70 in western
Kansas. When Troopers McMillan and Schulte exited the Love’s, they smelled the
odor of marihuana. Trooper McMillan stood outside of the Love’s for up to five
minutes and, at some point, “noticed two men (one black and the other white)
standing and talking by [an] Altima.” App. Vol. 2 at 171. From this, Trooper
McMillan reached the conclusion that one or both men could be “associated with the
marijuana smell.” Id. As Trooper McMillan would later determine, Mr. Bosire was
the African American individual. But in his declaration, Trooper McMillan did not
(1) provide any reason for why he associated the marihuana smell with Mr. Bosire or
(2) discuss whether he observed any other individuals at the Love’s. For reasons also
not apparent from the record, Trooper McMillan suspected Mr. Bosire and the white
man were trafficking drugs, possibly caravanning.4 Based on his experience, Trooper
McMillan believed the Altima was a rental car, a suspicion he later confirmed.
4
Caravanning involves individuals traveling in two vehicles, where the lead
vehicle attempts to draw police attention while the trail vehicle transports the drugs.
7
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 8
It does not appear Trooper McMillan immediately acted upon his suspicions or
kept a watchful eye on Mr. Bosire or the unidentified white man. The record reflects
Trooper McMillan went to his patrol car and exited the Love’s, observing a Dodge
Charger “driving west on a street just north of [the Love’s].” Id. at 171–72. For
reasons unclear to the district court and to us, Trooper McMillan suspected the
Dodge Charger (1) was a rental vehicle and (2) was associated with the white man
who had been speaking with Mr. Bosire. But rather than follow the Dodge Charger,
Trooper McMillan entered I-70, heading eastbound.
At some point on I-70 east, Trooper McMillan observed the Altima, operated
by Mr. Bosire, driving in excess of the speed limit and conducted a traffic stop.
Trooper McMillan approached the Altima, noticing Mr. Bosire had only slightly
lowered the window. Trooper McMillan surmised Mr. Bosire was attempting to
conceal something. But Mr. Bosire did lower his window further upon Trooper
McMillan’s request and Trooper McMillan did not smell the odor of marihuana
emanating from the vehicle. Trooper McMillan did, however, observe that Mr. Bosire
had cameras mounted in the vehicle and a notebook partially covered by a blanket in
the back seat.
Upon request, Mr. Bosire provided his driver’s license and car rental
agreement. Per the rental agreement, Mr. Bosire was late in returning the vehicle.
Trooper McMillan attempted to question Mr. Bosire about his travel plans but
Mr. Bosire indicated only that he was traveling eastbound and then mentioned his
right to remain silent. Trooper McMillan returned to his vehicle and drafted the
8
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 9
paperwork for a speeding warning. Before Trooper McMillan returned to the Altima,
Trooper Schulte arrived at the scene. The two troopers conversed, with Trooper
McMillan inquiring about the proximity of the nearest K-9 unit but also indicating
his belief that he lacked reasonable suspicion to hold Mr. Bosire.
Trooper McMillan reapproached Mr. Bosire’s vehicle with the intent to give
him a warning for speeding and to question him about his presence at the Love’s.
Mr. Bosire gave a series of short answers and then, like during the first interaction,
mentioned his right to silence. Trooper McMillan stated that Mr. Bosire was making
him suspicious and asked Mr. Bosire if he could search the vehicle.5 Mr. Bosire
declined consent.
Trooper McMillan, without discussing with Trooper Schulte his second
interaction with Mr. Bosire, directed Trooper Schulte to request a K-9 unit.
Approximately twenty-two minutes elapsed as Mr. Bosire sat parked on the side of
I-70 waiting for the K-9 unit to arrive and for the dog to conduct a sweep of the
Altima. The dog did not alert. Trooper McMillan issued Mr. Bosire a warning for
speeding and permitted Mr. Bosire to leave.
5
In his declaration, Trooper McMillan asserts he “formed the belief that
Mr. Bosire did not honestly . . . answer [his] questions.” App. Vol. 2 at 176. Whether
a reasonable officer could have believed Mr. Bosire provided dishonest answers or
sought to invoke his right to silence and avoid interaction with Trooper McMillian is
a dispute of fact properly resolved by a jury. For purposes of summary judgment, we
must proceed under the factual assumption that Mr. Bosire, after having sought to
invoke his right to silence during the first encounter, sought to avoid further verbal
interaction with Trooper McMillan.
9
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 10
C. Procedural History
The Shaws initiated this action against Trooper Schulte in December 2019.
Mr. Bosire joined the action, adding Trooper McMillan as a defendant. Before the
close of discovery, Troopers Schulte and McMillan moved for summary judgment
based on qualified immunity. The Shaws and Mr. Bosire contested the motions,
identifying several disputes of fact and proffering additional factual propositions in
their responses to summary judgment. Troopers Schulte and McMillan did not timely
file a reply brief contesting the disputes of fact or the factual propositions advanced
in the Shaws’ and Mr. Bosire’s responses.
The district court denied the motions for summary judgment through text
orders:
ORDER overruling . . . Motion for Summary Judgment Against
Plaintiff[s] Bosire’s [and Shaws’] Claims for substantially the reasons
stated in . . . Memorandum In Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgement. Signed by District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil on
6/22/2021. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document
associated with this entry.)
App. Vol. 1 at 25. Troopers McMillan and Schulte moved to alter or amend the
judgment, seeking both reconsideration of the ruling and asking the district court to
provide its reasoning for denying summary judgment. Troopers McMillan and
Schulte also sought to file out-of-time reply briefs. The district court held a hearing
at which it denied both the motion to alter or amend judgment and the motion to file
out-of-time reply briefs. This interlocutory appeal followed.
10
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 11
III. DISCUSSION
We start by stating the qualified-immunity standard and then the standard
generally governing reasonable suspicion. Cognizant that our jurisdiction is limited
to legal issues, we then analyze the qualified-immunity defenses advanced by
Troopers Schulte and McMillan, concluding (1) the Shaws may proceed with their
action to the extent it alleges Trooper Schulte unlawfully detained them from the
time Blaine declined consent to a search to when the drug dog alerted and
(2) Mr. Bosire may proceed on his action against Trooper McMillan.
A. Qualified Immunity Framework
Qualified immunity “protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who
knowingly violate the law.’” White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 551 (2017) (per curiam)
(quoting Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015) (per curiam)). To overcome a
qualified immunity defense, “the onus is on the plaintiff to demonstrate ‘(1) that the
official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly
established at the time of the challenged conduct.’” Quinn v. Young, 780 F.3d 998,
1004 (10th Cir. 2015) (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011)). We
may address the two prongs in any order. Id.“In order for a constitutional right to be clearly established, the contours of the
right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what
he is doing violates that right.” Id. at 1004–05 (internal quotation marks omitted). “A
plaintiff may satisfy this standard by identifying an on-point Supreme Court or
published Tenth Circuit decision; alternatively, the clearly established weight of
11
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 12
authority from other courts must have found the law to be as the plaintiff maintains.”
Id. at 1005 (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, “there can be the rare
obvious case, where the unlawfulness of the officer’s conduct is sufficiently clear
even though existing precedent does not address similar circumstances.” Estate of
Ceballos v. Husk, 919 F.3d 1204, 1218 (10th Cir. 2019) (quoting District of
Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 590 (2018)) (quotation marks omitted).
While “the Supreme Court has ‘repeatedly told courts not to define clearly
established law at a high level of generality,’” it has also explained that “‘officials
can still be on notice that their conduct violates established law even in novel factual
circumstances.’” Quinn, 780 F.3d at 1005 (first quoting al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742,
then quoting Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002)). Ultimately, we must assess
whether “existing precedent [has] placed the statutory or constitutional question
beyond debate.” White, 137 S. Ct. at 551 (quoting Mullenix, 577 U.S. at 12).
B. General Standard Governing Reasonable Suspicion
An officer can “briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if the officer
has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may
be afoot, even if the officer lacks probable cause.” Cortez v. McCauley, 478 F.3d
1108, 1115 (10th Cir. 2007). In assessing whether an officer had reasonable
suspicion, this court “must look at the totality of the circumstances of [the] case.”
United States v. Kitchell, 653 F.3d 1206, 1218 (10th Cir. 2011). “For reasonable
suspicion to exist, an officer must ‘articulate something more than an inchoate and
unparticularized suspicion or hunch.’” United States v. Moore, 795 F.3d 1224, 1229
12
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 13
(10th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989)).
“Reasonable suspicion is not, and is not meant to be, an onerous standard.”
Kitchell, 653 F.3d at 1219 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In
deciding if reasonable suspicion supported a detention, “we judge the officer’s
conduct in light of common sense and ordinary human experience and we accord
deference to an officer’s ability to distinguish between innocent and suspicious
actions.” United States v. Simpson, 609 F.3d 1140, 1146 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted); United States v. Walraven, 892 F.2d 972, 975
(10th Cir. 1989) (“In determining the reasonableness of an investigative detention,
‘common sense and ordinary human experience must govern over rigid criteria.’”
(emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 685 (1985))). “To
satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard, an officer need not rule out the possibility
of innocent conduct, or even have evidence suggesting a fair probability of criminal
activity.” United States v. Pettit, 785 F.3d 1374, 1379 (10th Cir. 2015) (quotation
marks omitted).
Finally, within the context of a § 1983 action and a qualified-immunity
defense, the threshold for reasonable suspicion is lowered. Specifically, an officer “is
entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable officer could have believed that
[reasonable suspicion] existed to . . . detain the plaintiff—i.e., if the officer had
arguable reasonable suspicion.” Vondrak v. City of Las Cruces, 535 F.3d 1198, 1207
(10th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
13
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 14
C. Shaws’ Action Against Trooper Schulte
We view the Shaws’ Action and Trooper Schulte’s motion for summary
judgment as having two parts: (1) the initial prolongation of the stop for a K-9 sweep
and (2) the prolongation of the stop after the dog alert. We discuss each in turn.
1. Initial Prolongation of Stop for K-9 Sweep
On appeal, Trooper Schulte argues six factors supported arguable reasonable
suspicion for extending the stop of the Shaws: (1) Blaine failed to promptly pull
over; (2) the Shaws were traveling to Denver; (3) the minivan was not registered in
Blaine’s name; (4) Blaine had a prior arrest for drug trafficking; (5) the minivan had
a “lived-in” look; (6) Samuel acted in a nervous and suspicious manner. We start our
analysis with the final two factors.
While an officer’s experience that drug traffickers travel in vehicles in which
they live and the nervousness of an occupant in a vehicle may count toward the
reasonable suspicion calculus,6 we may consider these factors at the interlocutory
appeal stage only if a reasonable jury would necessarily need to adopt the veracity of
Trooper Schulte’s purported observations. Such is not the case here because the
Shaws have advanced evidence disputing the accuracy of Trooper Schulte’s
6
See, e.g., United States v. Hernandez-Lizardi, 530 F. App’x 676, 680–81
(10th Cir. 2013) (unpublished) (concluding a display of nervousness by a passenger
can be a consideration in the reasonable suspicion calculus); United States v. Davis,
636 F.3d 1281, 1291 (10th Cir. 2011) (“[N]ervousness is a common, natural reaction
during a traffic stop, and thus only extraordinary and prolonged nervousness can
weigh significantly in the assessment of reasonable suspicion” such that, normally,
nervousness will only “contribute marginally to a reasonable suspicion of illegal
activity.”).
14
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 15
observations. The Shaws’ evidence is in the form of their own affidavits, as well as
other evidence in the record—including Trooper Schulte’s reaction to Blaine’s
refusal of consent to search and Trooper Schulte’s questionable claim that he “found
it suspicious that B. Shaw claimed to be a criminal justice major at his age and that
he would refuse a search if he were a criminal justice major.” App. Vol. 2 at 84. This
evidence would permit a reasonable jury to find the facts in favor of the Shaws and to
question Trooper Schulte’s credibility. Accordingly, while it may be appropriate to
consider these factors as part of the reasonable suspicion calculus at a later stage in
these proceedings, it is not appropriate to do so at this stage.
Turning to the amount of time it took Blaine to stop, we assign this factor
minimal value given the circumstances of the stop. To be sure, we have frequently
concluded that an individual’s failure to promptly stop in response to a police officer
attempting to conduct a traffic stop supports reasonable suspicion of criminal activity
beyond a mere traffic violation. United States v. Ludwig, 641 F.3d 1243, 1248 (10th
Cir. 2011); United States v. Fernandez, 18 F.3d 874, 878–79 (10th Cir. 1994)
(collecting cases). However, the reasonable-suspicion calculus is fact specific and
based on common sense. United States v. Gaines, 918 F.3d 793, 802 (10th Cir. 2019);
Walraven, 892 F.2d at 975. Thus, the degree to which a driver’s failure to promptly
stop supports reasonable suspicion will vary depending on the circumstances of the
stop. Like the district court, we consider the nature of the traffic stop here unusual in
that Trooper Schulte was traveling the same direction as Blaine, let other cars pass
him, activated his lights and siren before Blaine passed him, and did little to clarify
15
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 16
the initial ambiguity of whether he intended to stop Blaine. Indeed, for twenty
seconds, he followed Blaine at a consistent distance of four to five center-dividing
dash-lines rather than closing the distance between his patrol vehicle and the
minivan. Accordingly, while a reasonable officer could have concluded Blaine was
slow to stop, the weight due to this factor is minimal where, as the district court
noted “I don’t know one person in a thousand that would think they’re supposed to
stop,” under these facts. Supp. App. at 62.
Turning to the Shaws’ destination and the vehicle registration, we conclude
both factors have minimal value. Circuit precedent identifies Denver as a “known
drug source area” such that an individual’s intended travel to Denver can add to the
reasonable suspicion calculus. United States v. Williams, 271 F.3d 1262, 1270 (10th
Cir. 2001). But our case law also recognizes that many areas have been labeled
“known drug source area[s],” including “the entire West Coast,” all of Colorado,
California, Texas, and “a significant number of the largest cities in the United
States.” Id. Thus, where it would be difficult to take a road trip without driving
toward, through, or from a “known drug source area,” this consideration is due
extremely minimal weight.7 See Vasquez v. Lewis, 834 F.3d 1132, 1138 (10th Cir.
7
This is particularly true where the stop occurred in western Kansas on I-70
westbound, an interstate which largely traverses across farmland and relatively empty
foothills before reaching Denver. This is to say, a significant percentage of motorists
traveling I-70 westbound in the area where Trooper Schulte stopped Blaine are
traveling to or through Denver such that common sense defeats placing any
meaningful weight on the Shaws’ travel plans.
16
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 17
2016) (“[T]hat the defendant was traveling from a drug source city . . . does little to
add to the overall calculus of suspicion.”).
We have likewise concluded that a vehicle not being registered to a driver is a
factor supporting reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking. Ludwig, 641 F.3d at 1249.
But we reached that conclusion where both the vehicle registration and insurance
were in the name of a third party. Id. at 1246. Here, while the vehicle registration was
not in Blaine’s name, Trooper Schulte possessed paperwork showing that Blaine was
named as an insured on the vehicle’s policy. Furthermore, the vehicle was registered
to Blaine’s father, not an individual with no clear and obvious connection to Blaine
and Samuel. Accordingly, given the facts known to Trooper Schulte at the time he
extended the traffic stop, common sense dictates that very little weight is due to the
vehicle registration in the reasonable suspicion calculus.
Thus, so far in our analysis, the only factors properly considered at summary
judgment are of minimal or very minimal value. Still remaining, however, is Blaine’s
prior drug trafficking arrest. There is no dispute that “[a] previous criminal history
may also weigh in favor of an officer’s reasonable suspicion of illegal activity.”
United States v. Davis, 636 F.3d 1281, 1291 (10th Cir. 2011). But, “[a]n individual’s
criminal record, by itself, is not a sufficient basis for reasonable suspicion.” Id. To
that point, “[e]ven people with prior convictions retain Fourth Amendment rights;
they are not roving targets for warrantless searches.” United States v. Santos, 403
F.3d 1120, 1132 (10th Cir. 2005). Here, while Blaine did have a prior drug
trafficking arrest, the arrest occurred nearly ten years prior to the traffic stop.
17
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 18
When this passage of time is combined with the minimal value attributed to
the other factors identified by Trooper Schulte that are free from any disputes of fact,
Trooper Schulte has not amassed factors supporting arguable reasonable suspicion as
a matter of law. See Vasquez, 834 F.3d at 1136–37 (holding lack of reasonable
suspicion based on travel from known drug source area/Denver area, insurance not
matching vehicle driven, items in vehicle suggestive of driver sleeping in vehicle,
and driver acting nervous during the stop). Put another way, considering the totality
of the circumstances, Trooper Schulte has not advanced sufficient undisputed facts
establishing arguable reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop of the Shaws.
Furthermore, the undisputed facts, including the minimal weight given to the factors
not in dispute, are sufficiently similar to Vasquez to permit the Shaws to overcome
the clearly established prong of qualified immunity for purposes of this stage of the
proceedings. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s denial of Trooper Schulte’s
motion for summary judgment relative to the time between when Blaine refused
consent and the dog alerted while sweeping the minivan. As discussed next, however,
we reach a different conclusion regarding the Shaws’ ability to proceed on their
claim relative to the period of time after the dog alerted.
2. Prolongation of Stop after Dog Alert
Trooper Schulte argues that even if disputed material issues of fact surround
whether he had reasonable suspicion for prolonging the stop, we should limit the
Shaws’ claim to the period between when he called for the K-9 unit and when the dog
alerted because the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine do
18
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 19
not apply within the context of a § 1983 action. The district court never passed
judgment on this argument and the Shaws do not respond to the argument on appeal.
A dog alerting during a sweep of a vehicle provides officers with probable
cause to search the vehicle. See United States v. Parada, 577 F.3d 1275, 1282 (10th
Cir. 2009) (collecting cases and stating, “the general rule we have followed is that a
dog’s alert to the presence of contraband is sufficient to provide probable cause”).
Under the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine and within the context of a motion to
suppress in a criminal case, the dog’s alert would not save the proceeds of the search
if Trooper Schulte lacked reasonable suspicion to further detain the Shaws while
waiting for the K-9 unit to arrive. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354–55
(2015). But the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine rests in the exclusionary rule’s
deterrent purposes. See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 442–43 (1984) (“The core
rationale consistently advanced . . . for extending the exclusionary rule to evidence
that is the fruit of unlawful police conduct has been that this admittedly drastic and
socially costly course is needed to deter police from violations of constitutional and
statutory protections.”). And while it is true that § 1983 actions “serve as a deterrent
against future constitutional deprivations,” Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S.
622, 651 (1980), it is generally recognized that (1) the further removed in time a
consequence is from an officer’s action, the less of a deterrent impact; and
(2) application of the exclusionary rule outside the direct criminal context has
decreasing deterrent impact, Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 487–88 (1976).
19
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 20
Considering the marginal deterrent effect of applying the exclusionary rule
within the § 1983 context with the fact that not applying the rule would merely
truncate the scope of a § 1983 action but not bar pursuit of the action, we agree with
the seeming consensus in our sibling circuits that the exclusionary rule and
fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine do not apply in the § 1983 context. See Martin v.
Marinez, 934 F.3d 594, 599 (7th Cir. 2019) (“[T]he fact that the evidence was the
fruit of an illegal detention does not make it any less relevant to establishing probable
cause for the arrest because the exclusionary rule does not apply in a civil suit under
§ 1983 against police officers.”); Lingo v. City of Salem, 832 F.3d 953, 960 (9th Cir.
2016) (“Once again, the federal courts of appeals that have considered this issue
appear to be in accord: ‘The lack of probable cause to search does not vitiate the
probable cause to arrest’ on the basis of evidence found in that search.” (quoting
Townes v. City of N.Y., 176 F.3d 148, 149 (2d Cir. 1999) (ellipsis omitted))); Black v.
Wigington, 811 F.3d 1259, 1268 (11th Cir. 2016) (“We now join our sister circuits
and hold that the exclusionary rule does not apply in a civil suit against police
officers. The cost of applying the exclusionary rule in this context is significant . . . .
And the deterrence benefits are miniscule.”); see also Hector v. Watt, 235 F.3d 154,
156–57 (3d Cir. 2000) (concluding § 1983 plaintiff could not advance claim
dependent on exclusionary rule because § 1983 adopted common-law tort principles
but the exclusionary rule was not part of the common law). Accordingly, Trooper
Schulte is entitled to summary judgment on the portion of the Shaws’ action seeking
damages for their detention subsequent to the dog alert.
20
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 21
D. Mr. Bosire’s Action Against Trooper McMillan and Trooper Schulte
1. Claim Against Trooper McMillan
On appeal, Trooper McMillan argues six factors support arguable reasonable
suspicion: (1) the cameras in Mr. Bosire’s vehicle and his experience that they are
associated with caravanning; (2) Mr. Bosire was driving a rental vehicle with a short-
term contract; (3) Mr. Bosire had not rolled his window very far down before
Trooper McMillan approached the vehicle; (4) Mr. Bosire provided dishonest
answers about talking with the white man at the Love’s; (5) associating the smell of
marihuana at the Love’s with Mr. Bosire; and (6) his belief that Mr. Bosire was
caravanning with the Dodge Charger. As a starting point, we reject Trooper
McMillan’s reliance on the final three factors, at least at this stage of the
proceedings.
On the final two factors, as recognized by the district court, Trooper
McMillan’s declaration is lacking in coherence, paints an incomplete picture, and
would permit a reasonable jury to find Trooper McMillan incredible on these matters.
Regarding the marihuana smell, the declaration suggests Trooper McMillan exited
the Love’s, smelled marihuana, looked around for up to five minutes, saw Mr. Bosire
and a white man talking near a gas pump, and leaped to the conclusion that
Mr. Bosire and the white man may have been the source of the marihuana. This series
of events does not even support a reasonable hunch that Mr. Bosire was the source of
the marihuana smell. And, even if Trooper McMillan could establish a reasonable
basis for initially connecting the smell to Mr. Bosire, Trooper McMillan’s attempt to
21
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 22
rely on it in support of the ultimate reasonable suspicion determination is undermined
where Trooper McMillan, prior to calling for the K-9 unit, interacted with Mr. Bosire
and acknowledges he “could not smell marijuana on Mr. Bosire or in Mr. Bosire’s
vehicle.” App. Vol. 2 at 173.
Trooper McMillan’s attempt to rely on the allegation that Mr. Bosire was
caravanning with a Dodge Charger suffers from similar deficiencies. The declaration
offered by Trooper McMillan does not place (1) the Dodge Charger in the Love’s
parking lot, (2) Mr. Bosire anywhere near the Dodge Charger; or (3) the white man
anywhere near the Dodge Charger. Further, Trooper McMillan’s alleged suspicion
that Mr. Bosire was caravanning with the Dodge Charger is curious where, at least
from his declaration, it does not appear Trooper McMillan observed where the Dodge
Charger went, or whether it ever entered I-70 eastbound, the direction in which both
Trooper McMillan and Mr. Bosire traveled. More perplexing, although Trooper
McMillan attempts to associate the Dodge Charger with the white man at the Love’s
suggesting one driver in each of two cars, Trooper McMillan expressed some surprise
that when he stopped Mr. Bosire the white man was not in the Altima. See id. at 168
(Trooper McMillan declaring that when he approached the Altima he “did not know
how many occupants were in the vehicle or their race”); id. at 173 (Trooper
McMillan declaring that “I also radioed Schulte that the white man seen at the
convenience store is ‘no longer in the car’”). Trooper McMillan’s expectation that
the white man might be traveling in the Altima is inconsistent with the white man
operating the Dodge Charger and caravanning with Mr. Bosire. Where, on this
22
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 23
record, there is no reasonable basis to believe the Altima and the Dodge Charger
were caravanning, a reasonable jury could reject that ground for the extension of the
traffic stop and also question the credibility and the veracity of Trooper McMillan’s
other alleged observations.
Next, as to the nature of Mr. Bosire’s responses to Trooper McMillan’s
questions about the white man at the Love’s, we conclude a dispute of fact exists.
This exchange occurred after Mr. Bosire sought to invoke his right to silence during
the first exchange. Cf. United States v. Williams, 271 F.3d 1262, 1267 (10th Cir.
2001) (“Though [questions about travel plans] do typically fall within the scope of a
traffic stop, citizens’ legitimate privacy interests are protected in that they are not
legally obligated to answer such questions, nor can an officer compel an answer to
these routine questions.”). And Mr. Bosire again sought to invoke his right to silence
during the exchange about the white man at Love’s. Thus, while a jury might find
that Trooper McMillan reasonably viewed Mr. Bosire’s responses as dishonest, it
also might find that Mr. Bosire sought to invoke his constitutional right to silence and
avoid additional verbal interaction with Trooper McMillan.
The remaining three factors offered by Trooper McMillan do not amount to
arguable reasonable suspicion. On the rental car, we have “suggested that the use of a
rental car can potentially contribute to an officer’s reasonable suspicion of drug
trafficking.” Kitchell, 653 F.3d at 1221. But, where there is no discrepancy between
the rental contract and the suspect’s travel, the factor receives “little weight.” Id.Here, the rental vehicle was due earlier in the day of the traffic stop but Mr. Bosire
23
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 24
was traveling in the direction of where he was scheduled to return the rental car.
Accordingly, while the rental nature of the Altima may be of slightly more than
“little weight,” it remains a relatively unpersuasive factor.
Next, as to the window, we have concluded that a driver’s “odd use of his
window can contribute to reasonable suspicion.” United States v. Ahmed, 825 F.
App’x 589, 592 (10th Cir. 2020) (unpublished); see also United States v. Ludlow, 992
F.2d 260, 264 (10th Cir. 1993) (failure of driver to roll down window all the way
could raise suspicion driver was trying to hide an odor). But a reasonable jury might
not find Mr. Bosire’s use of his window at all “odd.” Although Mr. Bosire did not
lower his window more than a crack before Trooper McMillan approached the
vehicle, he did lower the window partially upon Trooper McMillan’s request for his
license and the rental agreement. Further, the stop occurred on a winter night in rural
Kansas. Given likely weather conditions, it is unsurprising that a stopped motorist
would wait for an officer to approach to further lower his window. Finally, Trooper
McMillan’s concern that Mr. Bosire was attempting to hide something by not
lowering the window is counteracted by his own observation that he did not smell
any marihuana coming from Mr. Bosire or the vehicle and his apparent ability to see
into the vehicle where he spotted the cameras and a notebook partially covered by a
blanket.8 Accordingly, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Mr. Bosire, as
8
Trooper McMillan also attempts to rely on his observation of the notebook as
a factor in support of reasonable suspicion, contending that in his experience drug
traffickers keep ledgers of their sales. Opening Br. at 13, 54. It is hardly uncommon
for an individual to have a notebook in his vehicle. And Trooper McMillan does not
24
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 25
we must at this stage of the proceedings, Mr. Bosire’s use of his window carries little
value in the reasonable-suspicion calculus.
Lastly, Trooper McMillan relies upon the presence of cameras in Mr. Bosire’s
vehicle and his experience that they are associated with caravanning. In the context
of a home, we have concluded the presence of surveillance cameras, when combined
with other evidence of the drug trade, supports reasonable suspicion. United States v.
Murphy, 901 F.3d 1185, 1192 (10th Cir. 2018). But, here, Trooper McMillan has not
identified any other undisputed evidence of the drug trade in connection with
Mr. Bosire. Accordingly, while the presence of cameras in the Altima is a
consideration in support of reasonable suspicion, it is not sufficient to meet the
arguable reasonable-suspicion threshold even when combined with the other factors
properly before us at the summary-judgment stage. Put another way, considering the
totality of the circumstances, Trooper McMillan has not advanced sufficient
undisputed fact to establish arguable reasonable suspicion in support of his decision
to prolong the stop of Mr. Bosire. And, given the minimal value of the factors
properly before us when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to
Mr. Bosire, we conclude it so obvious that reasonable suspicion was lacking as to
present any observations about the notebook, such as a title on the book or seeing
dates and transactions listed on a page of the notebook, supporting the proposition
that the notebook was a drug-sale ledger. Nor is Trooper McMillan’s hunch that the
notebook was a drug ledger particularly consistent with his belief that Mr. Bosire was
not the primary drug-trafficker and was driving the vehicle to distract police
attention. Thus, Trooper McMillan’s observation of the notebook, if of any value in
the reasonable suspicion calculus, is of minimal value.
25
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 26
permit Mr. Bosire to overcome Trooper McMillan’s assertion of qualified immunity
at this stage of the proceedings.9 Therefore, we affirm the district court’s denial of
Trooper McMillan’s motion for summary judgment.
2. Claim Against Trooper Schulte
We, however, reach a different conclusion regarding Mr. Bosire’s claim
against Trooper Schulte. The undisputed facts do not support the proposition that
Trooper Schulte was part of the decision-making process in prolonging the stop of
Mr. Bosire for a K-9 sweep.10 In fact, Mr. Bosire’s theory for his claim is that
Trooper Schulte had a duty to intervene and dissuade Trooper McMillan from
holding Mr. Bosire until the K-9 unit arrived. In support of this theory and the
viability of his claim against Trooper Schulte, Mr. Bosire cites Vondrak for the
general proposition “that all law enforcement officials have an affirmative duty to
intervene to protect the constitutional rights of citizens from infringement by other
law enforcement officers in their presence.” 535 F.3d at 1210 (quoting Anderson v.
Branen, 17 F.3d 552, 557 (2d Cir. 1994)). But we made this statement in the context
of an excessive force claim. Id. And where the intrusion and permanency of harm
9
In concluding Trooper McMillan obviously lacked reasonable suspicion
under the facts we must assume for purposes of summary judgment, we observe that,
although not bound to view the facts in a light most favorable to Mr. Bosire, a KHP
investigation concluded (1) “there was not reason to detain Mr. Bosire further for a
K-9 unit to respond to the scene” and (2) Trooper McMillan “h[e]ld Mr. Bosire for a
longer duration than is legally acceptable.” App. Vol. 3 at 158.
10
To the extent Trooper Schulte was the officer who called dispatch for a K-9
unit, he did so upon Trooper McMillan’s request and after Trooper McMillan decided
to extend the traffic stop rather than giving Mr. Bosire the speeding warning and
permitting him to go on his way.
26
Appellate Case: 21-3130 Document: 010110693117 Date Filed: 06/06/2022 Page: 27
from the use of excessive force may exceed that from the relatively brief
prolongation of a traffic stop, Vondrak does not clearly establish that an officer must
intervene to prevent an illegal search and seizure. Accordingly, Mr. Bosire has not
overcome the second prong of Trooper Schulte’s qualified-immunity defense.
Therefore, we reverse the district court’s denial of Trooper Schulte’s motion for
summary judgment as to Mr. Bosire’s claim.
IV. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM IN PART and REVERSE IN PART. The Shaws may proceed on
their § 1983 action against Trooper Schulte but Trooper Schulte is entitled to partial
summary judgment regarding the scope of the Shaws’ action. Additionally, while
Mr. Bosire may proceed on his § 1983 action against Trooper McMillan, Trooper
Schulte is entitled to qualified immunity as to Mr. Bosire’s action.
27