U.S. v. Eymann

In prosecution on drug conspiracy charges arising out of seizure of quantity of drugs found in airplane and in airport courtesy car, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress seizure of drugs following encounter with police at nearby hotel parking lot. Record showed that: (1) police had previously received tip from special agent that defendants' airplane would be landing at Litchfield airport, and that said airplane's movement patterns and quick-turn trips were suspicious for drug activity; (2) police observed airplane land at airport and followed defendants to nearby hotel parking lot; (3) after talking to defendants, one defendant admitted to small possession of marijuana in airport courtesy car; and (4) police sniff dog alerted to presence of drugs in courtesy car and later alerted to presence of drugs in airplane. Police had reasonable suspicion to stop and question defendants at hotel parking lot given substance of tip from police agents and knowledge that plane had made stops at two locations known for drug trafficking. Moreover, reasonable person would not have believed that he was under formal arrest at time of questioning, even though squad cars had surrounded courtesy car, and even though officer at prior state-court proceeding held opinion that defendants were in custody at time of questioning. Also, one defendant's admission of presence of small amount of marijuana in courtesy car supplied probable cause to search courtesy car, and although police lacked probable cause to arrest second defendant so as to support search of airplane, inevitable discovery rule applied with respect to search of airplane, where: (1) reliable sniff dog alerted to presence of drugs in plane during outside sniff of airplane; and (2) police testified that they would have conducted sniff test regardless of what happened at hotel parking lot. (Dissent filed.)