Background
Bolarinwa Salau appealed his conviction for identity theft, entered pursuant to a conditional guilty plea. Salau challenged the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle following a traffic stop. He argued the officer lacked probable cause to believe he was speeding based on the officer’s use of the pacing method.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error. It noted that a traffic stop constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment and is reasonable where police have probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred. While visual estimation alone may require additional indicia of reliability, the court found that pacing methods can support that reliability. The officer observed Salau speeding, paced his cruiser to confirm the visual assessment, and recorded a speed of eighty-two miles per hour in a sixty-five miles per hour zone. The court discerned no clear error in the district court’s conclusion that these methods were reliable and credited the officer’s testimony over Salau’s.
What it means going forward
This decision reinforces that pacing is a valid method for establishing probable cause in traffic stops, even when combined with a visual estimate, provided the officer confirms the speed while traveling alongside the vehicle.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download