Officer Unlawfully Extended Stop By Questioning Car Occupants About Firearms

US v. Martin: Martin was a passenger in a car driven by Jarvis in a national forest in West Virginia. They first encountered a forest ranger when they had pulled over to look for mushrooms. After checking to see if they were lost or otherwise needed help, the ranger went on his way. About 45 minutes later, he encountered them again when he came across their vehicle parked on a one-lane bridge. Jarvis moved the car and the ranger pulled in just ahead of them.

When he approached Jarvis (both she and Martin had gotten out of the car), the ranger asked first asked for Jarvis’ license and whether there were any firearms in the car. Jarvis said there was. In spite of that, the ranger allowed Jarvis to get back in the car, twice, to get additional documentation. He found a gun under the driver’s seat and examined the serial number, but otherwise left it alone. He asked Jarvis if there was anything else in the car and she admitted there was another firearm under the passenger’s seat. The ranger eventually learned that Martin had a prior felony conviction. He arrested Martin, then took him to his nearby family picnic where the ranger informed Martin’s mother of the firearm and released Martin. Martin pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm after the district court denied his motion to suppress.

On appeal, a divided Fourth Circuit reversed the denial of Martin’s motion to suppress. The ranger “exceeded the scope of the seizure by immediately engaging in a criminal investigation unrelated to the traffic violation warranting the stop” when he “immediately asked about the presence of firearms.” While such inquiries “would have been lawful if they were conducted during the course of a diligently conducted stop . . . that is not the case here” where the ranger “abandoned the stop from the very beginning.” It distinguished the court’s earlier decision in Buzzard, noting that the officer there was “mid-stop when he began questioning about the presence of firearms,” whereas the ranger “led the stop with that question.” Nor did the ranger ever return to the initial purpose of the stop, instead digressing into an investigation of firearms and potential ginseng poaching.

Judge King dissented, arguing that, as in Buzzard, the totality of the circumstances here justified the ranger’s questions about firearms.

NOTE: I was counsel for Martin on this case, along with my colleague Lex Coleman who did the oral argument.