The fact a vehicle was broken down and not stopped does not alter officer’s ability to order occupants out if safety is an issue

Request to a passenger of a broken down vehicle to get out was reasonable when the officer arrived and smell burnt marijuana. The fact the vehicle was broken down and not stopped did not matter. [This was in an Anders brief] United States v. Henderson, 237 Fed. Appx. 834 (4th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished):

Although Henderson makes much of the fact that Vanicek originally approached the van simply because he received a report of a disabled vehicle as opposed to pursuant to a traffic stop, Henderson neglects to consider that this was not why Vanicek requested that Henderson exit the vehicle. As Vanicek’s report on the incident established, after approaching the vehicle, Vanicek noticed a “strong odor” of marijuana emanating from the vehicle. Accordingly, Vanicek’s request that Henderson, who had been sitting in the driver’s seat, exit the vehicle was not predicated on the fact that the van was disabled, but on Vanicek’s recognition that illegal drugs either were being, or had recently been, used. “[W]hen the officer has a reasonable suspicion that illegal drugs are in the vehicle, the officer may, in the absence of factors allaying his safety concerns, order the occupants out of the vehicle.” United States v. Sakyi, 160 F.3d 164, 169 (4th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, we conclude that Vanicek’s request that Henderson exit the van did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

We further reject Henderson’s contention that Vanicek’s initial pat-down search was illegal because Vanicek lacked a reasonable belief that Henderson was armed. Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 110-11, 98 S. Ct. 330, 54 L. Ed. 2d 331 (1977), authorizes a police officer to frisk a vehicle’s driver or occupant if there is a reasonable belief that they are armed and dangerous. As we have recognized, “[t]he indisputable nexus between drugs and guns presumptively creates a reasonable suspicion of danger to the officer.” Sakyi, 160 F.3d at 169. The noticeable presence of marijuana supported Vanicek’s decision to frisk Henderson.

Officer had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant based on the unusually high mileage on his truck (39k miles in 7 months) and unusual travel plans which were indicative of drug running. Alternatively, the defendant granted effective consent [explained in detail], and a recent patched hole in the firewall under the hood was discovered, and that justified further detention. The vehicle was seized and removed for a further search which produced 78 pounds of cocaine. United States v. Gallardo, 495 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2007).*

Officer stopped a tractor trailer, and determined that there was reasonable suspicion for continuing the stop from where the truck had spent the night before in a known drug corridor and the driver’s odd and suspicious way of answering questions. A drug dog was called, and the dog alerted on the sleeper cab. The use of the dog was reasonable because of reasonable suspicion. Considering the existence of reasonable suspicion, the length of the stop was not unreasonable.United States v. Williams, 238 Fed. Appx. 566 (11th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished):

The police officer testified at the hearing on Williams’s motion that through a series of questions he noted, among other things, that Williams did not behave as truckers normally do when pulled over, did not have valid registration papers for his tractor trailer, had a 24-hour or more layover in an area known as a drug corridor, and behaved oddly when answering whether he was transporting illegal people or substances. Based on these factors, the police officer became suspicious that Williams may not have had authority to drive the tractor trailer or may be transporting something illegal, such that he summoned a police dog. After the police dog alerted near the cab of the tractor trailer, the police officer found approximately 200 pounds of marijuana in the sleeper berth of the cab. The testimony at this hearing also revealed that the entire detention lasted approximately 37 minutes, 13 minutes of which was spent waiting for the police officer’s partner to transport the police dog to the site of the stop.