S.D.W.Va.: Checking box of a category on a warrant form did not make it not particular

Objection to checking a box on a form for a category of what was to be seized is in the nature of a “hypertechnical error,” even if it was error. In any event, the good faith exception would save the warrant. United States v. Alston, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68870 (S.D. W.Va. August 6, 2009).*

Defendant’s tractor trailer was speeding, and, on the stop, the log book showed reasonable suspicion just on reading it. A drug dog was called, and it alerted. The stop was valid and was appropriately extended on reasonable suspicion. United States v. Arango-Lopez, 340 Fed. Appx. 154 (4th Cir. 2009) (unpublished):

Arango-Lopez was traveling over the speed limit and Trooper Stines possessed sufficient cause to stop him, request his license, registration, and other documents pertaining to commercial trucking, and examine them. Arango-Lopez argues that Trooper Stines had neither a reasonable suspicion nor probable cause to detain him beyond the initial traffic stop. Trooper Stines testified that during the initial traffic stop and review of Arango-Lopez’s documentation he became suspicious of the legitimacy of Arango-Lopez’s trucking business and itinerary, thus justifying continued detention. Trooper Stines testified that during the questioning Arango-Lopez appeared extremely nervous and the nervousness did not dissipate once Stines informed him that he was merely writing him a warning ticket. Arango-Lopez’s bills of lading and log book also contained inconsistencies, including a large load of expensive electronics in an unsealed trailer, an unexplained day-and-a-half stop in Arkansas, and a circuitous route that was hundreds of miles longer than the more heavily-patrolled direct route. Based on the totality of the circumstances, Trooper Stines had a reasonable suspicion that Arango-Lopez was involved in criminal activity to detain him beyond the initial stop.

We also conclude that the warrantless search of the truck trailer was lawful. First, probable cause existed to support the search after a trained drug dog alerted to drugs in the truck trailer. Moreover, independent of probable cause, Arango-Lopez provided voluntary oral and written consent to the search. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in refusing to suppress the evidence obtained during the search of the truck trailer or Arango-Lopez’s subsequent statements.