ADVERTISEMENT

Iowa Supreme Court rules drug bust made after I-80 traffic stop not constitutional

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
79,435
62,542
113
The Iowa Supreme Court says a drug bust made by a State Trooper after stopping a car for a minor traffic violation was not legal.

State Trooper Eric Vander Weil was in Powesheik County watching for out-of-state vehicles on Interstate 80 in June of 2012 as part of an effort to locate drugs being transported across the state.

He saw a car with California license plates and pulled it over for having a non-working taillight. The trooper wrote out two traffic warnings and after talking with the driver and passenger, he felt something was up.

Trooper Vander Weil said that driver John Saccento and passenger Robert Pardee were nervous when he spoke to them. He also detected the strong odor of air freshener and saw a small can of air freshener on the floor of the car. There were other items in the car, such as a bag of trash and a sleeping bag on the back seat, which led him to believe the men were “traveling hard, not taking any time to throw away their trash and make any unnecessary stops.”

Saccento said he was moving back to New Jersey from California and was making the move in multiple trips and that he was currently returning from his second trip from California to New Jersey.

The trooper asked for permission to search the car and have a drug dog check the car. Saccento refused both. The trooper called in the drug dog. The dog found marijuana and $33,000 dollars in cash in the car. Both men were arrested and the state filed a forfeiture notice to seize the money.

Pardee, was later acquitted of a marijuana possession charge and filed to get the money back saying it was illegally seized. He argued the approximately 25 minute traffic stop was well beyond the time needed to write the warnings.

The Iowa Supreme Court on a 5-2 vote ruled the stop violated Pardee’s constitutional rights. Based on recent cases with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Iowa court says the trooper developed reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity only by prolonging the initial traffic stop beyond the time reasonably necessary to execute the traffic violation warnings.

Chief Justice Mark Cady was one of the three judges to disagree with the majority ruling, saying the nervous of Pardee and the driver, the smell of air freshener in their car and other indicators were enough to prolong the stop to look for drugs.

Here’s the full ruling: Drug bust ruling PDF

http://www.radioiowa.com/2015/12/11...e-after-i-80-traffic-stop-not-constitutional/
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkMD
According to one dissent:

Good search because in the officer's experience that air freshener is often used to cover up smell of drugs.

Seriously, that allows an officer to call for a drug dog and detain you...
 
Feel free to read it and express your difference of opinion.

What furthers it? The "lived in" look?
 
Feel free to read it and express your difference of opinion.

What furthers it? The "lived in" look?

I don't know. I haven't been through State Patrol training.

Between training and instincts he confirmed his suspicions.
 
I don't know. I haven't been through State Patrol training.

Between training and instincts he confirmed his suspicions.

He confirmed that the driver was a drug trafficker?

Interesting.

New DRE training is, what, 8 hours? Oh yeah those officers are definitely experts.
 
Sure I did.

The Trooper made a legal stop. He suspected the guys they might be carrying. They were.

He took too much time, so they got off.

Lol. Ok.

So the LEOs believe they were drug traffickers, right? That was their suspicion.

What did they find?
 
It's interesting that they didn't say how much they found and just that marijuana was found. The $33,000 in cash is also a little bit of a red flag, but I think the Supreme Court made the correct ruling. I saw something on the news today, regarding a drug arrest for >2 grams of pot. That's less than an 1/8 of an ounce. The dumbass who got arrested called to report an "attempted" break-in so maybe there is something more to the story, but I thought anything less than oz anymore just got a ticket. It's been years since I had to worry about it, but thought getting arrested for 2 grams seemed a little harsh.

I used to work with a part-time sheriff's deputy and he said a real red flag for anyone with out of county/state plates is the following:

There were other items in the car, such as a bag of trash and a sleeping bag on the back seat, which led him to believe the men were “traveling hard, not taking any time to throw away their trash and make any unnecessary stops.”

Now I'm not sure if I could tell the difference between a slob and drug trafficker but cops looking for this sort of thing say it's one of the top signs to ask for a search of the vehicle.
 
Very telling you refuse to be specific.

Do you agree that they did NOT, in fact, confirm their "suspicion" that they were traffickers?

I'm sure you don't.

I just stated that the LEO's suspected drugs and they found it.

Good hunch that was accurate.

You started in on the air freshener bit.
 
It's interesting that they didn't say how much they found and just that marijuana was found. The $33,000 in cash is also a little bit of a red flag, but I think the Supreme Court made the correct ruling. I saw something on the news today, regarding a drug arrest for >2 grams of pot. That's less than an 1/8 of an ounce. The dumbass who got arrested called to report an "attempted" break-in so maybe there is something more to the story, but I thought anything less than oz anymore just got a ticket. It's been years since I had to worry about it, but thought getting arrested for 2 grams seemed a little harsh.

I used to work with a part-time sheriff's deputy and he said a real red flag for anyone with out of county/state plates is the following:



Now I'm not sure if I could tell the difference between a slob and drug trafficker but cops looking for this sort of thing say it's one of the top signs to ask for a search of the vehicle.

Wait tIH says all they acted on was the presence of air-freshener.
 
Hell, the officer admitted the only reason for the initial stop was to do drug interdiction...to try and search it.

That was before all of his weak reasoning for actually having "suspicion." What a surprise he found reasons to search it after making the stop.

22 looks at the confirmation to prove the suspicion...yet ignores the simple fact that had they found nothing they would have simply pretended it didn't happen....EVEN THOUGH it would be the exact same "suspicion."

It's a numbers game for them. Search as many as possible and hope to hit the jackpot. Find nothing and let them go, not much the people can do about it.

Therefore we only find out about the "bad guys"...which some people then believe justifies the means. The means, you know, bring violating the Constitution.
 
Geez, read my post. I said the dissent approved on that ground.

He actually approved on all 3 reasons

Chief Justice Mark Cady was one of the three judges to disagree with the majority ruling, saying the
1) nervous of Pardee and the driver, 2) the smell of air freshener in their car and 3) other indicators were enough to prolong the stop to look for drugs.

Regardless he took 25 minutes to write a ticket for broken taillights and the court that was hearing the case decided that was too long and voted as they saw the case. I agree with the court that the officer was probably trying to get the two individuals to admit something and when he couldn't he called in the dog.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 22*43*51
[QUOTE="fredjr82, post: 1528142, member: 9428]



Now I'm not sure if I could tell the difference between a slob and drug trafficker but cops looking for this sort of thing say it's one of the top signs to ask for a search of the vehicle.[/QUOTE]

Of course they go, it's how they are trained. Doesn't mean there is any accuracy to it, at least to the point of being meaningful.

Off-topic, but similar, there was an article recently on arson investigations and the finding that we now know our entire "bible" of arson investigations was based on made-up, colloquial and anecdotally evidence that was entirely inaccurate.

We have long trained our officers based on faulty investigation tactics...passed down from one LEO to another. Science/studies often play no part.
 
There was no reasonable suspicion. Of course there was "suspicion". Have you ever met a LEO without suspicion?

This is my favorite part of the PDF

As he approached the moving vehicle in his patrol car, Trooper Vander Weil observed the Toyota slowing down to sixty-five miles per hour, below the seventy-miles-per-hour posted speed limit. Pulling alongside the moving vehicle, Vander Weil also noticed that the driver looked over at him, then looked away and didn’t look back at him again. In addition, Vander Weil saw the driver with his hands now at the ten and two positions on the steering wheel. Vander Weil slowed his own patrol car and pulled in behind the silver Toyota.

So basically they were going under the speed limit, wouldn't make eye contact with him, and were driving with their hands at 10 and 2. BY GOD!! THEY'RE NOT BREAKING THE LAW SO THEY MUST BE BREAKING THE LAW!!!
 
This is my favorite part of the PDF

As he approached the moving vehicle in his patrol car, Trooper Vander Weil observed the Toyota slowing down to sixty-five miles per hour, below the seventy-miles-per-hour posted speed limit. Pulling alongside the moving vehicle, Vander Weil also noticed that the driver looked over at him, then looked away and didn’t look back at him again. In addition, Vander Weil saw the driver with his hands now at the ten and two positions on the steering wheel. Vander Weil slowed his own patrol car and pulled in behind the silver Toyota.

So basically they were going under the speed limit, wouldn't make eye contact with him, and were driving with their hands at 10 and 2. BY GOD!! THEY'RE NOT BREAKING THE LAW SO THEY MUST BE BREAKING THE LAW!!!

Exactly. "Nervousness" is not enough (that isn't even nervousness), and a "lived in" car isn't enough. The dissent was making its decision based on the air freshener, the one thing that the officer claimed his "experience" supports covering up of drugs. It was what the dissent used to rise it to reasonable.
 
This criminal is a dummy (redundant I know)

Trooper Vander Weil returned to his patrol car and had Saccento sign for the warnings. At 9:55 a.m., Trooper Vander Weil told Saccento he was free to go. However, instead of leaving, Saccento asked Trooper Vander Weil, “Do you mind if I like, just hang out here for a minute and stretch my legs?” Trooper Vander Weil said this was “no problem” but he then asked Saccento if he would consent to answering more questions, which Saccento did.

So this numbnuts is carrying weed and a large amount of cash in his car, and was basically given the ability to get back in his car and leave but chose to "Hang out and stretch my legs"? Are you F'ING serious?!?!? I can't believe i just read that.
 
I read that the suspicion wasn't unreasonable, the amount of time was.

Technically they didn't decide reasonableness, it didn't have to go that far, because the LEO took too long to even try.

But, it is obvious that if it had been reasonable, the time would have been approved. It wasn't reasonable.
 
Technically they didn't decide reasonableness, it didn't have to go that far, because the LEO took too long to even try.

But, it is obvious that if it had been reasonable, the time would have been approved. It wasn't reasonable.

I wonder if "leg stretching" time was included in that?

That sounds like it is "our time" Mr. Hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbq hawk 32
  • Like
Reactions: unIowa
Is drugs considered "goods" in this case?

If the drugs are illegal then 'no' I wouldn't consider them typical goods BUT we have all heard the stories of seizure of homes, cars, etc.

This is just the cops being shake down artist for our govt officials so they can help load up the state coffers...thus New American Mafia.
 
What all people should be concerned with is the fact that the district court ordered the forfeiture of $33,000 even after the defendant was found not guilty of the marijuana possession. State takes the money, requires the person to hire an attorney to recover it, and the burden of proof is on the person, not the State. Everything is just wrong with that last sentence imo.
 
Hooray for drug dealers?

Hooray for people that believe in a justice system rather than just having the cops pull out a gun and shoot the suspect. Iowa cops are an embarrassment when it comes to making "Drug stops". They are literally just sitting at the border fishing for cash. They are like the Mafia!
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT