Case: 16-10128 Date Filed: 01/08/2019 Page: 1 of 32 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-10128 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 3:14-cr-00046-CAR-CHW-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ERICKSON MEKO CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia ________________________ (January 8, 2019) Before TJOFLAT and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and MURPHY,∗ District Judge. TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge: ∗ Honorable Stephen J. Murphy III, District Judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation. Case: 16-10128 Date Filed: 01/08/2019 Page: 2 of 32 This appeal presents important questions about the proper confines of a traffic stop. First, whether a highway patrolman had reasonable suspicion to stop a motorist for a rapidly blinking turn signal. Second, if there was reasonable suspicion, whether the seizure became unreasonable when the patrolman prolonged the stop by questioning the motorist about matters unrelated to the stop’s mission. The District Court concluded that the initial stop was valid and that the questioning about unrelated matters did not transform the stop into an unreasonable seizure. The District Court therefore denied the motorist’s motion to suppress inculpatory evidence discovered during a subsequent search. We agree that there was reasonable suspicion to stop the motorist. But we find that under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015), the patrolman did unlawfully prolong the stop. Because his actions were permitted under binding case law at the time, however, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. We thus affirm the denial of the motion to suppress. I. A. At about 9:00pm on a brisk night in December 2013, Deputy Sheriff Robert McCannon was patrolling Interstate 20 in Georgia when he observed a Nissan 2 Case: 16-10128 Date Filed: 01/08/2019 Page: 3 of 32 Maxima cross the fog line. 1 McCannon activated the camera on the dashboard of his patrol car, and after observing the Maxima cross the fog line a second time and noticing that its left turn signal blinked at an unusually rapid pace, he pulled the car over. He approached the Maxima, introduced himself to the driver, Erickson Campbell, asked him for his driver’s license, and explained why he had pulled him over. After determining that the Maxima’s left turn signal was malfunctioning, McCannon decided to issue Campbell a warning for failing to comply with two Georgia traffic regulations: failure to maintain signal lights in good working condition,2 and failure to stay within the driving lane.3 McCannon asked Campbell 1 The “fog line” is the line on the side of the highway that separates the highway from the shoulder, marking the end of the highway’s outside lane. 2 O.C.G.A. § 40–8–26 states, in pertinent part: (a) Any motor vehicle may be equipped . . . with the following signal lights or devices: .... (2) A light or lights or mechanical signal device capable of clearly indicating any intention to turn ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals