U.S. v. Radford

In prosecution on drug distribution charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress drugs and gun seized from defendant and his car following traffic stop on charge of following too closely to vehicle. Record showed that: (1) DEA agent who had been watching suspected drug house alerted officer that white Audi had left drug house and was headed officer’s way; (2) officer observed defendant driving white Audi at 40 to 45 m.p.h. and within less than car-length from another car; (3) officer stopped defendant’s car based upon perception that defendant was driving too closely to other vehicle; (4) defendant made quick and furtive movements as officer approached defendant’s car, and officer asked defendant to step out of his car; (5) defendant initially disregarded officer’s direction to put cell-phones on dashboard, and during search held his left arm close to his body; (6) during search of left side of defendant’s body, officer saw plastic bag that looked like heroin; and (7) officer subsequently learned that substance in bag was fentanyl and learned, following warrant search at scene of stop, that defendant had outstanding warrant on charge of operating vehicle after lifetime suspension of his driver’s license. While defendant insisted that stop was unlawful because he had not violated any statute, Dist. Ct. could properly credit officer’s version of events, which was corroborated by photograph indicating that officer was in position to make determination about speed of defendant’s car and its proximity to another vehicle. Also, officer could reasonably conduct frisk of defendant following instant stop given defendant’s movements at start of encounter, and inevitable discovery rule applied, where frisk of defendant and search of his car would have occurred once officer was aware of existence of outstanding warrant.