Because truth is stranger than fiction, today's decision in United States v. Taylor, --- F.4th ---, No. 21-10377 (9th Cir. 2023), turned largely on an unzipped fanny pack.
The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence discovered following a traffic stop.
"At the point when [the officer] asked Taylor . . . to exit the vehicle, the officers knew that Taylor was driving a vehicle without license plates or registration tags, that he lacked identification, and that he was on federal supervision for being a felon in possession of a firearm. But once Taylor stepped out of the car, officers had another data point: Taylor’s distinctive unzipped fanny pack slung across his chest. Both officers testified that fanny packs are commonly used to store weapons, with Gariano noting police had seen 'an uptick' in this behavior . . . . That the fanny pack was empty and unzipped added to the reasonable suspicion. As Officer Alvarado testified, it was 'odd' that Taylor had the fanny pack 'on his person' when 'there was nothing in it.'"
"We of course recognize that standing alone, a fanny pack is not necessarily an unusual item of apparel. We certainly do not suggest that officers have reasonable suspicion to frisk anyone who wears that accessory. But here, the fanny pack was curiously empty and unzipped, and it did not stand on its own: officers had just pulled Taylor over for driving without license plates, Taylor had no identification, and, most critically, Taylor had just disclosed that he was on federal supervision for being a felon in possession of a firearm. When combined with the officers’ experience with fanny packs, the circumstances taken as a whole created reasonable suspicion that Taylor, who was not permitted to have a gun, might have one."
Thus, the Court held that the officers did not unreasonably prolong the stop. It further held:
"[T]here is a second doctrinal pathway to affirming the denial of Taylor’s motion to suppress as to the duration of the stop once Taylor stepped out of the car. The second pathway is this: even if officers prolonged the encounter beyond the original mission of the traffic stop, they had a sufficient basis to do so. As we have described, the officers knew about Taylor’s traffic offenses and that he was on federal supervision for being a felon in possession, and once Taylor stepped out of the car, the officers could clearly see Taylor’s unzipped, empty fanny pack. At that point, under the totality of the circumstances, and for the reasons we gave above, officers had 'reasonable suspicion of an independent offense.' Thus, even if, contrary to precedent, the frisk and criminal history check were beyond the mission of the traffic stop, they were still permissible based on the officers’ reasonable suspicion of an independent offense: Taylor’s unlawful possession of a gun."
The Court also held that the warrantless search of Taylor's car was valid based on consent.
So, the moral of the story. Always zip your fanny packs!
