{"id":22161,"date":"2022-12-09T05:33:39","date_gmt":"2022-12-09T05:33:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/12\/09\/appeals-court-reminds-cop-that-calling-normal-human-behavior-suspicious-is-no-way-to-secure-a-conviction\/"},"modified":"2022-12-09T05:33:39","modified_gmt":"2022-12-09T05:33:39","slug":"appeals-court-reminds-cop-that-calling-normal-human-behavior-suspicious-is-no-way-to-secure-a-conviction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/12\/09\/appeals-court-reminds-cop-that-calling-normal-human-behavior-suspicious-is-no-way-to-secure-a-conviction\/","title":{"rendered":"Appeals Court Reminds Cop That Calling Normal Human Behavior Suspicious Is No Way To Secure A Conviction"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>\n
<\/p>\n

\n

from the being-a-human-being-isn’t-evidence-of-wrongdoing<\/i> dept<\/h3>\n

Since cops are trained to view everything as suspicious, they tend to believe everything is suspicious<\/a>. The list of things considered to be suspicious often contradicts other things<\/a> on the list of things considered suspicious. That should be considered suspicious, but somehow cops never think it is.<\/p>\n

Even if they don\u2019t believe everything is suspicious, they swear that pretty much everything is while testifying in court. Because if you don\u2019t claim normal human activity is \u201creasonably suspicious,\u201d it makes it very difficult to salvage unconstitutional stops and searches.<\/p>\n

The cop involved in this gun possession case hoped to convince a court a driver\u2019s very normal reaction was inherently suspicious, but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is far from convinced. Overturning the lower court\u2019s dismissal of the arrestee\u2019s motion to suppress, the Appeals Court says it doesn\u2019t see the things the cop saw that he felt justified (illegally) extending the stop and performing a search of the car. (via Short Circuit<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s how the Appeals Court describes<\/a> [PDF] what it saw, which is not what Officer Helms claimed. <\/p>\n

\n

When Officer Helms turned on his lights, Phillips\u2019s vehicle was essentially parallel with a turn lane that led to a well-lit parking lot. Phillips hit her brakes just four seconds after Officer Helms\u2019s lights came on and activated her blinker three seconds after hitting her brakes. Phillips came to a complete stop seventeen seconds after Officer Helms turned his lights on. <\/em><\/p>\n

After Phillips came to a stop, Officer Helms approached the driver\u2019s side of the vehicle. His body camera captured his exchange with Phillips. Shortly after Officer Helms approached Phillips\u2019s vehicle, she began searching for her license. While Officer Helms testified that Phillips\u2019s hands were shaking during the encounter, her hands did not appear to be shaking while she was handing Officer Helms her license or her insurance information.<\/em> The next time that Phillips\u2019s hands were in view, it still was not evident that she was shaking<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The first part \u2014 the time it took for Phillips to stop \u2014 is noted because it contradicts the lower court\u2019s findings. The second part is essential because the officer\u2019s own body cam contradicts what he claimed he observed.<\/p>\n

Officer Helms continued to insist Phillips was shaking, an observation (one not based on actual observation, mind you) he made to the other officer arriving on the scene. And then, with the ticket already printed, he decided to extend the stop.<\/p>\n

\n

When a backup officer arrived, Officer Helms told him that he was suspicious of the vehicle\u2019s occupants because Phillips was shaking and tapping on the car door. At approximately the same time, Officer Helms printed Phillips\u2019s warning ticket. Soon thereafter, Officer Helms approached Phillips\u2019s vehicle, asked Phillips to exit the vehicle, and told her he would be leading his canine around the vehicle to sniff for illegal drugs. After the canine indicated that there were drugs in the vehicle, officers performed a full search. During the search, they located two handguns in Miller\u2019s backpack<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Teresa Miller was only a passenger in the car. She was riding in the backseat. Her backpack was searched because\u2026 well, apparently the officer felt this search was justified because of the dog\u2019s alert on the car. But there\u2019s nothing on the record that says the officer asked the dog to sniff the backpack on its own. Either way, the search was performed, contraband was found, and Miller was charged.<\/p>\n

The lower court rejected her suppression attempt. It said it couldn\u2019t tell from the footage whether or not the driver was shaking. It also said Phillips was \u201cslow to pull over\u201d and passed a couple of well-lit streets before pulling over on a \u201cdimly-lit section of Route 7.\u201d For some reason, the district court also added that Route 7 was a \u201cknown drug corridor,\u201d something that\u2019s completely irrelevant because the car wasn\u2019t travelling on the drug corridor and there were no drugs discovered in the car.<\/p>\n

The Appeals Court says the lower court is wrong.<\/p>\n

\n

Here, the video evidence from Officer Helms\u2019s dashboard camera shows that Phillips stopped within a reasonable amount of time. Phillips could not have pulled into the well-lit parking lot that Officer Helms intended her to because she was parallel with the entrance when Officer Helms activated his lights. And contrary to the district court\u2019s findings, the video shows Phillips did not pass any other area, well-lit or otherwise, where she could have safely stopped. There were no earlier exits, and the road did not have a shoulder. Next, Phillips began braking just four seconds after Officer Helms turned his lights on, indicating that she was in the process of stopping. Four seconds is a reasonable time for a person to react and determine that an officer intends to pull her over. While it ultimately took Phillips thirteen seconds to come to a complete stop after first engaging her brakes, she stopped at the first available place on the road where she could safely do so. Under these facts, she came to a stop in a reasonable amount of time.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It\u2019s also wrong about the supposed \u201cshaking\u201d Officer Helms claimed to observe.<\/p>\n

\n

While the district court is correct that the video does not show Phillips\u2019s hands the entire time, the video clarity is quite good, and shows that her hands were not shaking. Moreover, her hands can be seen both at the beginning of the encounter and at the end, and the video footage shows that her demeanor did not change throughout the conversation. Thus, the district court clearly erred by finding that Phillips was shaking during the traffic stop.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Then there\u2019s the \u201ctapping\u201d Officer Helms told another officer he believed was indicative of the driver\u2019s nervousness while weaving together his reasonable suspicion tapestry. It\u2019s indicative of nothing, says the Fourth Circuit.<\/p>\n

\n

The only (arguably) nervous behavior the Government can point to after Officer Helms\u2019s statement is Phillips tapping her fingers on the car door. But tapping is not an indicator of excessive or sustained nervousness because it is completely consistent with law abiding behavior. Although fidgeting may certainly be a sign of nervousness, tapping one\u2019s fingers may just as likely be a sign of annoyance, impatience, or even boredom\u2014any of which may be expected when a person is stopped by a police officer and is awaiting the results of a license check. By itself, tapping one\u2019s fingers is a very weak indicator of nervousness.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Away goes the evidence. The conviction and sentence are vacated. At long last, Miller is actually free to go. Pretending something is happening when it actually isn\u2019t turns out to be a great way to violate rights. And when rights are violated, every so often the victim of the violations scores a win in court. <\/p>\n