Patchy explanation for box in truck justifies search

 The Sixth Circuit reversed the suppression of evidence from a traffic stop today in United States v. Urraca, concluding that “objective facts known to the officers warranted each step of the investigation.”

The traffic stop began as a “regulatory inspection” of a semitrailer.  According to the officer, the driver was “sitting oddly with his back not touching the driver’s seat” and “the trucking company had the worst possible score (99) for a company still allowed to operate.” Then, after stopping the truck, “a driver of another car” told the officer the trailer had been swerving, and the officer found that the driver’s paperwork was in disarray. Officers eventually entered the passenger compartment, where the driver and a codriver started to seem evasive when asked about a bunk and box under it. The driver said the box contained items belonging to the truck’s owner. The officer ordered a drug sniff, which uncovered narcotics.

The Sixth Circuit, unlike the district court, decided that a reasonable officer, apprised of all the facts, would have had a legitimate reason to suspect that the truck contained drugs at the time he ordered the dog sniff.  The court pointed to three aspects of the inspection: (1)  the drivers’ reaction when Fuller asked them about the bunk and the box; (2) “the box itself and the drivers’ explanation for it”; and (3) “the context in which these events occurred, all after [the driver]’s half-truths, apparent lies, and unexplained deviations from standard industry practice.”