Below is a cache of http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/ct/Documents/Appeals/07-0359-cr-USvTisdol.pdf. It's a snapshot of the page taken as our search engine crawled the Web.
The web site itself may have changed. You can check the current page or check for previous versions at the Internet Archive. Yahoo! is not affiliated with the authors of this page or responsible for its content.
August 31, 2007 US v. Tisdol 2nd Circuit Brief 07-0359-cr


To Be Argued By:
B
RIAN
P.

L
EAMING
=========================================

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT


Docket No. 07-0359-cr

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
-vs-
WILLIAM TISDOL,
Defendant-Appellant.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
========================================
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
========================================
KEVIN J. OCONNOR
United States Attorney
District of Connecticut
BRIAN P. LEAMING
Assistant United States Attorney
WILLIAM J. NARDINI
Assistant United States Attorney (of counsel) TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Authorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Statement of Jurisdiction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii
Statement of the Issues Presented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
Preliminary Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Statement of the Case.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Statement of Facts and Proceedings
Relevant to this Appeal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A. The suppression hearing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B. The district court ruling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
C. Trial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
D. Sentencing hearing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Summary of Argument.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
I. The district court did not clearly err in crediting the
testimony of the police officers that they observed a
traffic infraction which justified a traffic stop. . . . . 16
A. Factual and procedural background. . . . . . . . . 16
B. Governing law and standard of review. . . . . . . 17 ii
C. Discussion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
II. The district court correctly held that the police
officers subjective motivations are irrelevant to the
determination of reasonable suspicion. . . . . . . . . . 26
A. Factual and procedural background. . . . . . . . . 26
B. Governing law and standard of review. . . . . . . 27
C. Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
III. Even if the subjective motivations of police
were relevant to the traffic stop, they were
authorized to stop the vehicle in which the
defendant was a passenger because he was
detained as he exited an apartment for which
they had a search warrant, and the stop was
reasonable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
A. Factual and procedural background. . . . . . . . 29
B. Governing law and standard of review. . . . . . 30
C. Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
IV. The district court did not abuse its discretion by
admitting recorded prison phone conversation in
which the defendant admitted drug dealing during
the time period covered by the indictment. . . . . . 36 iii
A. Factual and procedural background. . . . . . . . 36
B. Governing law and standard of review. . . . . . 40
C. Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
V. The 140-month within-guidelines range sentence
imposed by the district court was reasonable. . . . 48

A. Relevant facts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
B. Governing law and standard of review. . . . . . 48
C. Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Certification per Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(C)
Addendum iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
P
U RSU AN T TO
B
LU E
B
O O K RU LE
10.7,
THE
G
O VER N M EN T S C ITATIO N O F
CASES DO ES NO T IN CLU D E CERTIO RARI D ENIED D IS PO S ITIO N S TH A T AR E
M O R E TH AN TW O Y EAR S O LD
.
Anderson v. Bessemer City,
470 U.S. 564 (1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Huddleston v. United States,
485 U.S. 681 (1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Maryland v. Wilson,
519 U.S. 408 (1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Michigan v. Summers,
452 U.S. 692 (1981). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
Minnesota v. Dickerson,
508 U.S. 366 (1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Muehler v. Mena,
544 U.S. 93 (2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Norton v. Sams Club,
145 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Old
Chief v. United States,
519 U.S. 172 (1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 v
Ornelas v. United States,
517 U.S. 690 (1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Pennsylvania v. Mimms,
434 U.S. 106 (1977). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Rita v. United States,
127 S.Ct. 2456 (2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 52
Rivera v. United States,
928 F.2d 592 (2d Cir. 1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Terry v. Ohio,
392 U.S. 1 (1968). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 18
United States v. Abel,
469 U.S. 45 (1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
United States v. Arvizu,
534 U.S. 266 (2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 18
United States v. Bailey,
468 F. Supp.2d 373 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). . . . . . . 34, 35
United States v. Bayless,
201 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
United States v. Bibo-Rodriguez,
922 F.2d 1398 (9th Cir. 1991).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
United States v. Birbal,
62 F.3d 456 (2d Cir. 1995).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 vi
United States v. Bold,
19 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48, 49, 53
United States v. Canova,
412 F.3d 331 (2d Cir. 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
United States v. Carboni,
204 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
United States v. Castillo,
460 F.3d 337 (2d Cir. 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53, 55
United States v. Cochran,
939 F.2d 337 (6th Cir. 1991).. . . . . . . . . . 31, 33, 34
United States v. Colombo,
909 F.2d 711 (2d Cir. 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
United States v. Colon,
250 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
United States v. Cortez,
449 U.S. 411 (1981). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
United States v. Crosby,
397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48, 49
United States v. Cummins,
920 F.2d 498 (8th Cir. 1990).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 vii
United States v. Dhinsa,
171 F.3d 721 (2d Cir. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . 20, 23, 27
United States v. Dukagjini,
326 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
United States v. Estrada,
430 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 29
United States v. Fernandez,
443 F.3d 19 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 192 (2006). . . 50, 51, 52, 56
United States v. Fleming,
397 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2005),
cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2915 (2006). . . . . . . . 50, 51
United States v. Fullwood,
86 F.3d 27 (2d Cir. 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
United States v. Gaines,
457 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
United States v. Garcia,
339 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
United States v. Garcia,
413 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
United States v. Gonzalez,
110 F.3d 936 (2d Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 viii
United States v. Gore,
154 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
United States v. Hassan El,
5 F.3d 726 (4th Cir. 1993).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
United States v. Martinez,
54 F.3d 1040 (2d Cir. 1995). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
United States v. Mendez,
315 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
United States v. Moorefield,
111 F.3d 10 (3d Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
United States v. Padilla,