United States v. Barrow: Fifth Circuit Affirms Officer’s Authority to Extend a Traffic Stop When Investigating a Plate-VIN Discrepancy — Even If the Discrepancy Originates from the Officer’s Own Typographical Error

1. Introduction

United States v. Barrow, No. 24-10102 (5th Cir. July 9, 2025) concerns the conviction of Mandis Charles Barrow for multiple methamphetamine-related offenses. The appellant challenged two district-court rulings:

Denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop on 18 February 2021;
Refusal to sever his joint trial from that of co-defendant Alicia Saldana after her closing argument placed the blame squarely on him.

In affirming, the Fifth Circuit articulated a noteworthy clarification: when an officer’s own typographical error on a license-plate query generates a plate-VIN mismatch, the officer may reasonably extend a stop to investigate the perceived discrepancy without violating the Fourth Amendment. The panel also reinforced the sufficiency of standard jury instructions to cure prejudice stemming from “mutually antagonistic” defenses in joint trials.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Per curiam, the court held:

Motion to Suppress: The initial stop was lawful (missing front plate and apparent lack of insurance). The continued detention—lasting well beyond Moore’s receipt of correct VIN data—remained “reasonably related in scope” because the officer diligently pursued the unresolved plate-VIN discrepancy and, shortly thereafter, gained separate reasonable suspicion that Saldana was impersonating a police officer. Hence, no Fourth-Amendment violation occurred.
Motion to Sever: Even assuming Saldana’s closing amounted to a “mutually antagonistic” defense, the district court’s limiting instructions were adequate. Rule 14 gives trial courts discretion, and existing Fifth-Circuit precedent presumes curative instructions suffice absent a showing of compelling prejudice.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) – two-step inquiry: (1) justification at inception, (2) scope/duration.
Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) – traffic-stop authority ends once tasks tied to the traffic infraction are completed.
United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc) – questioning about travel plans and investigating documents is within the stop’s mission; introduces “diligently pursued” standard.
Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014) – reasonable mistakes of law can justify stops; Barrow court extends the tolerance principle to factual mistakes resolved with diligence.
United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985) – reasonableness judged by whether police diligently pursued a means likely to confirm/dispel suspicion quickly.
United States v. De Leon-Reyna, 930 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1991) – good-faith reliance on database information can justify a stop despite error.
United States v. Zafiro, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) – severance under Rule 14 is discretionary; limiting instructions usually cure prejudice.
United States v. Matthews, 178 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 1999) – reinforces the efficacy of limiting instructions in joint trials.

By synthesizing Sharpe, Brigham, and Heien, the panel reiterated that “reasonable is not perfect” and that an officer’s investigative discretion during a lawful stop is broad so long as it is pursued with diligence.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

(a) Fourth Amendment / Motion to Suppress

Justification at Inception. Missing front plate and apparent uninsured status = objective legal basis. Mistyped plate number still qualifies as an objectively reasonable—albeit mistaken—basis (De Leon-Reyna).
Reasonable Extension.
- Three VIN checks did not dissolve Moore’s suspicion; a plate-VIN mismatch can indicate a “VIN swap”—a known vehicle-theft/drug-trafficking method.
- Officer chose to interrogate Saldana about purchase/registration rather than immediately re-run the plate. Under Sharpe, reasonableness is measured objectively, not by the most efficient alternative Barrow proposes.
- Discovery of potential police-impersonation (Saldana’s uncertain credentials) generated independent reasonable suspicion, justifying the K-9 sniff resulting in discovery of 3.8 kg of methamphetamine.
Diligence Standard. The court emphasized that Moore took continuous investigative steps (VIN checks, questioning, dispatcher queries). There was no “measurable time” inaction aimed solely at finding more evidence—a key Rodriguez limitation.

(b) Severance / Mutually Antagonistic Defenses

Rule 14 Framework. Even with prejudice, severance is optional; district court may opt for lesser relief (e.g., limiting instructions).
Limiting Instructions Suffice. The panel relied on Zafiro and Matthews in concluding the jury could compartmentalize evidence and statements. No Bruton issue arose because the inculpatory statements came from counsel, not a non-testifying co-defendant.
Standard of Review. Court bypassed the dispute (plain error vs. abuse of discretion) and affirmed even under de novo, underscoring the weakness of Barrow’s claim.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

Law-Enforcement Latitude. Officers in the Fifth Circuit may rely on their own reasonable factual mistakes, including typographical errors, when the mistakes generate plausible suspicions that are investigated with diligence.
Suppression Litigants’ Burden. Defendants will find it harder to argue that officers should have chosen a more efficient investigatory step (e.g., “just re-run the plate”) when the record shows continuing, good-faith efforts.
K-9 Sniffs. Once independent reasonable suspicion (e.g., impersonation of an officer) arises, extension for a K-9 unit is per se lawful—reinforcing post-Rodriguez jurisprudence.
Joint Trials. Fifth-Circuit defendants must show more than antagonistic theories; they must demonstrate a specific and compelling prejudice not cured by standard instructions.
Persuasive (Not Binding) Authority. The opinion is unpublished under 5th Cir. R. 47.5, limiting its precedential weight but nonetheless influencing district-court reasoning within the circuit.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Reasonable Suspicion: A “particularized and objective basis” for suspecting criminal activity—more than a hunch, less than probable cause.
Terry Stop: Momentary detention (including traffic stops) for investigative purposes; must be justified at the outset and stay within a reasonable scope.
Plate-VIN Discrepancy / VIN Swap: Criminal technique where a stolen vehicle bears mismatched identifiers; flags possible auto theft/drug trafficking.
K-9 Free-Air Sniff: Dog walks around a lawfully stopped vehicle; classified as a non-search if conducted during a lawful detention.
Mutually Antagonistic Defenses: Co-defendants present defenses that cannot both be true (“He did it,” “No, he did it”); not automatically grounds for separate trials.
Limiting Instruction: Judge’s directive telling jurors how to consider evidence or arguments; presumed effective absent contrary evidence.
Plain-Error Review: Appellate standard applied when an issue was not preserved below; requires (1) error, (2) plainness, (3) effect on substantial rights, (4) effect on fairness/integrity of proceedings.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Barrow reinforces two pillars of Fifth-Circuit criminal procedure:

Fourth-Amendment Flexibility. Officers may extend a traffic stop to investigate irregularities—even ones traceable to their own error—so long as the investigation is diligent and objectively reasonable.
Reluctance to Sever. The court continues to favor joint trials, relying on jury instructions to cure the prejudicial potential of antagonistic defenses.

Although unpublished, the decision is likely to be cited by prosecutors and district judges confronting suppression motions centered on officer mistakes or typographical errors. Defense counsel, in turn, will need to marshal more concrete evidence of dilatory conduct or egregious prejudice to prevail in future suppression and severance challenges.