Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03366/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03366-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Gary Oh Ward
Appellant

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable David L.

Piester, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3366

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Nebraska.

Gary Oh Ward, *

*

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 14, 2007

Filed: April 26, 2007

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

After a conditional guilty plea, Gary Oh Ward was convicted of conspiracy to

distribute marijuana, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 846. Ward appeals

the district court's1

 denial of his motion to suppress. This court affirms.

Appellate Case: 06-3366 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2007 Entry ID: 3303010
-2-

I.

Ward was pulled over by a Nebraska state trooper for following too close to

another vehicle. Before the cars stopped, the trooper learned that Ward's SUV was a

rental (based on the license plate). Approaching the SUV, the trooper saw a "Support

Our Troops" magnet on it and that Ward's U-Haul trailer had a newer padlock. Ward

was wearing a "DEA" ball cap and using a radar detector in a rental car. The trooper

smelled the scent of an air freshener.

Requesting Ward's license and rental agreement, the trooper asked Ward to

accompany him to the patrol car, to receive a warning ticket. There, the trooper

inquired about his travel plans and purpose, employment, residence, the DEA cap,

and the female passenger. Ward replied that he was moving the passenger, his

girlfriend, from California to Chicago; they both loaded the trailer (with her stuff);

and, he worked for the Department of Homeland Security. The trooper testified there

was some confusion over Ward's employment, as Ward initially displayed INS

credentials. According to the trooper, Ward was notably nervous. 

Before completing the warning ticket, the trooper exited the patrol car to check

the vehicle identification number (VIN). The trooper then approached the passenger.

She denied being Ward's girlfriend (as he was married) or packing the U-Haul. She

said she was just along for a ride to Connecticut. A subsequent search of the trailer

revealed 540 pounds of marijuana. 

Ward argues that the trooper lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to check

the VIN or question the passenger. He contends his Fourth Amendment rights were

violated by an extended stop, and therefore the district court should have suppressed

the evidence from the search.

Appellate Case: 06-3366 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2007 Entry ID: 3303010
-3-

II.

On appeal of a denial of a motion to suppress, this court reviews factual

findings for clear error and conclusions of law de novo. United States v. Durham,

470 F.3d 727, 733 (8th Cir. 2006). This court affirms unless the decision "is

unsupported by substantial evidence, based on an erroneous interpretation of

applicable law, or, based on the entire record, it is clear a mistake was made." United

States v. Harper, 466 F.3d 634, 643 (8th Cir. 2006), quoting United States v. Annis,

446 F.3d 852, 855 (8th Cir. 2006).

Ward concedes that the initial traffic violation provided probable cause to stop

his vehicle and conduct a reasonable investigation. See United States v. Sanchez,

417 F.3d 971, 974-75 (8th Cir. 2005). Ward asserts, however, that the trooper

unreasonably extended the investigation by approaching the vehicle to check the VIN

and question the passenger, because the trooper already had all the information needed

for a warning ticket. 

 Once an officer is legally authorized to stop the driver, the officer may conduct

an investigation "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the

interference in the first place." United States v. Bloomfield, 40 F.3d 910, 915 (8th Cir.

1994) (en banc). This reasonable investigation includes asking for a driver's license

and registration, requesting the driver sit in the patrol car, and asking questions about

destination and purpose. Id. 

Contrary to Ward's assertion, a reasonable investigation also includes checking

the VIN. A "demand to inspect the VIN, like a demand to see license and registration

papers, is within the scope of police authority pursuant to a traffic violation stop."

New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106, 115 (1986). See also id. at 120 (Powell, J.,

concurring) ("an officer making a lawful stop of a vehicle has the right and duty to

inspect the VIN").

Appellate Case: 06-3366 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/26/2007 Entry ID: 3303010
-4-

This court has consistently held that as part of a reasonable investigation, an

"officer may also question a vehicle's passengers to verify information provided by

the driver." Sanchez, 417 F.3d at 975. See United States v. Williams, 431 F.3d 296,

298 (8th Cir. 2005) (a reasonable investigation includes asking passengers about their

destination, route and purpose); United States v. Coney, 456 F.3d 850, 857 (8th Cir.

2006) (officers are entitled to question vehicle occupants to verify the driver's

answers); United States v. Linkous, 285 F.3d 716, 719 (8th Cir. 2002) (same); United

States v. Barragan, 379 F.3d 524, 529 (8th Cir. 2004) (same); United States v.

Brown, 345 F.3d 574, 578 (8th Cir. 2003) (same); United States v. Gregory, 302 F.3d

805, 809 (8th Cir. 2002) (same); United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3d 611,

617 (8th Cir. 2001) (same); United States v. Foley, 206 F.3d 802, 805 (8th Cir. 2000)

(same); United States v. Edmisten, 208 F.3d 693, 694 (8th Cir. 2000) (same); United

States v. Johnson, 58 F.3d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1995) (same); United States v.

Cummins, 920 F.2d 498, 502 (8th Cir. 1990) (same).

Ward repeatedly asserts that the trooper was "dilatory" in writing the warning

ticket. He invokes United States v. Beck, 140 F.3d 1129, 1134-35 (8th Cir. 1998), for

the proposition that once the purposes of the initial traffic stop are completed, an

officer cannot further detain the vehicle or its occupants by asking questions. In Beck,

however, questioning continued after the purpose of the initial stop was completed

when the officer gave a verbal warning and told the driver he was free to leave. Id.

The district court here made no finding that the trooper was dilatory and the trooper

had not finished writing the warning ticket before he checked the VIN and questioned

the passenger. 

Ward ignores that the scope of a stop can be expanded. "If reasonably related

questions raise inconsistent answers . . . a trooper's suspicions may be raised so as to

enable him to expand the scope of the stop to ask additional, more intrusive,

questions." United States v. Ramos, 42 F.3d 1160, 1163 (8th Cir. 1994). The Ramos

case allowed asking the passenger reasonably related questions, but found that if "no

Appellate Case: 06-3366 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/26/2007 Entry ID: 3303010
-5-

answers are inconsistent and no objective circumstances supply the trooper with

additional suspicion, the trooper should not expand the scope of the stop" by asking

unrelated questions. Id.

If "the responses of the detainee and the circumstances give rise to suspicions

unrelated to the traffic offense, an officer may broaden his inquiry to satisfy those

suspicions." Johnson, 58 F.3d at 357. Here, the circumstances – the patriotic magnet

on a rental car, newer lock on the U-Haul trailer, DEA cap, inconsistent

INS/Homeland Security credentials, air freshener, and Ward's nervousness – support

suspicions unrelated to the traffic offense. See United States v. Pulliam, 265 F.3d

736, 740 (8th Cir. 2001).

This broadened inquiry must be reasonable. Bloomfield, 40 F.3d at 916.

"[T]he investigative methods employed should be the least intrusive means reasonably

available to verify or dispel the officer's suspicion in a short period of time." Id. 

Here, the trooper verified the VIN and questioned the passenger in less than five

minutes. In total, about twenty minutes elapsed while the trooper stopped the vehicle,

questioned Ward, checked the VIN, and questioned the passenger. The length of the

detention was reasonable and did not involve delay unnecessary to the legitimate

investigation of the trooper.

III.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3366 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/26/2007 Entry ID: 3303010