Two to Tango? Sixth Circuit Holds Police Can Stop Vehicle Driving "In Tandem" With Suspected Drug Courier

Two vehicles are driving down the interstate.  The police were looking for one of the vehicles as a suspected drug courier but had no prior knowledge about the other vehicle.  Can they stop that vehicle if they believe it is driving "in tandem" with the suspected drug courier?  According to the Court in United States v. Belakhdhar, they can.

In Belakhdhar, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents, utilizing a confidential informant, made arrangements to purchase heroin from a supplier named Henry Soto, who agreed to drive the shipment from Chicago to Detroit.  With this information, DEA agents waited to intercept Soto's vehicle the next day on Interstate 94.  The agents confirmed the identity of Soto's vehicle through information provided by the confidential informant, which they verified through information they obtained using a "ping" warrant for his car.

When Soto's vehicle approached the DEA agents, they noticed another vehicle driving behind it at approximately the same speed and changing lanes at the same time.  Concluding the cars were driving "in tandem," the agents believed both vehicles were involved in the drug transaction and asked the Michigan State Police to stop both of them.

Once stopped, Belakhdhar provided the police with his identification and consented to a search of his vehicle.  The search, however, failed to reveal any evidence of contraband, and the officer allowed him to leave the scene.

The officer's negative search, however, did not satisfy the DEA agents.  Now armed with Belakhdhar's personal information, the agents discovered that he was not in the United States lawfully and asked border control officers to stop his vehicle.  During the second stop, this time at the United States border with Canada, a drug dog alerted to Belakhdhar's vehicle, and an ensuing search resulted in the discovery of two kilograms of heroin hidden in his vehicle.

Belakhdhar subsequently moved to suppress the evidence seized from his vehicle, arguing that the Michigan state troopers lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the first traffic stop.  The District Court agreed and held that tandem driving with another vehicle suspected of drug activity did not, by itself, provide reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle.   The Government appealed.

Noting that the parties had only presented legal issues, the Court noted it was limiting its opinion to the legal question of whether driving in tandem with another vehicle suspected of drug activity can provide reasonable suspicion supporting a stop.  It noted it was not deciding how much proof was necessary to establish that two cars were driving "in tandem. " Explaining that reasonable suspicion "does not present a particularly high bar," the Court held that evidence a car was driving in tandem with another car suspected of drug activity could provide reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle.

As it noted in its opinion, the Court left open the question as to what evidence is sufficient to establish that a car is driving "in tandem" with a car law enforcement suspects is involved in drug activity.  How closely to the cars have to follow each other?  Does a particular driving pattern suggest the cars are driving in tandem?  These are questions the Court may ultimately have to answer in light of its decision in Belakhdhar.