D.Mont.: Officers had RS for stop; it wasn’t based on the race of the suspects

Narcotics officers had more than just race of the suspects in making this stop. They developed reasonable suspicion. United States v. Woods, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138100 (D. Mont. June 22, 2026)*:

The circumstances here indicate that Agents had objective and specific facts tying Peroti to criminal activity beyond just his general appearance of being an African American male. Agents had reasonable suspicion to stop the car Peroti was traveling in because Peroti matched the exact identification that Agents expected to arrive on the Amtrak train and Peroti’s and Woods’s actions remained consistent with the July 2025 trip where men arrived in Havre and began selling dangerous drugs from C.H.’s house. Peroti had purchased his Amtrak ticket under a fictitious name, alerting the “watchlist” and was tied to a shooting in Washington. The Court rejects Wood’s contention that the stop of the Rogue was not premised on an impermissibly broad generalization of “black males arriving from Spokane.”

Agents instead had an individual, positive identification of Peroti when he arrived at the Amtrak station in Havre. Peroti’s purchase of the tickets under a fictitious name and matching the description upon arrival gave Agents a reasonable basis to believe Peroti, and as an extension, Woods, were engaged in criminal activity. In Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 413 (1997), the U.S. Supreme Court explained that law enforcement officers “may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop.” Wilson held that a proper stop of a car allowed law enforcement officers to demand even the passengers to exit the car for officer safety. Id. at 412-413. Even if Agents and Officers had not positively identified Woods, the valid stop of the Rogue where Peroti was located allowed Officers to demand that Woods also exit the Rogue for Officer safety and to dispel their reasonable suspicions.

Agents had specific information targeted at Peroti that tied him to suspected wrongdoing, drug activity, and an active warrant. …

This entry was posted in Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.