Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01925/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01925-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Calvin Patrick McLenon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1925

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Calvin Patrick McLenon, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 26, 2004

Filed: September 7, 2004

___________

Before BYE, LAY, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Calvin McLenon and two passengers were traveling eastbound on Interstate 80

through Nebraska when they were stopped by a state patrol trooper after committing

two traffic violations. After executing the stop, the trooper received deceptive

information from McLenon about his criminal history and inconsistent travel stories

from McLenon and one of the passengers. The trooper also detected a strong odor

of air freshener coming from the interior of the vehicle. His suspicions aroused, the

trooper asked for and received consent from McLenon to search the vehicle. The

trooper discovered a large amount of marijuana. McLenon thereafter was indicted for

possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He entered a plea of guilty but

Appellate Case: 04-1925 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/07/2004 Entry ID: 1807854 
1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska.

-2-

reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress all evidence seized

during what he claims was an unlawful detention that rendered his consent to search

the vehicle invalid.

Having reviewed the record de novo, see United States v. Walker, 324 F.3d

1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 2003), we conclude the district court1

 did not err in denying the

motion to suppress. In particular, we agree with the district court’s finding that,

considering the totality of the circumstances, the traffic stop did not become an

unlawful detention. See United States v. Long, 320 F.3d 795, 800 (8th Cir. 2003)

(stating the court must examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether

or not an officer has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to expand his

investigation during a traffic stop, and recognizing that the officer’s suspicions may

be unrelated to the traffic offense which served as the basis for the stop). Several

factors supported the trooper’s decision to seek permission to search the vehicle,

including the origination and destination points of the trip, McLenon’s deceptive

answers concerning his criminal history, and the discrepancies in travel stories from

McLenon and a passenger. We further agree with the district court’s finding that the

length of the entire stop, about thirty minutes, did not convert the stop into an

unlawful detention. See United States v. Foley, 206 F.3d 802, 806 (8th Cir. 2000)

(finding detention of less than thirty minutes following a traffic stop reasonable under

the circumstances); United States v. White, 42 F.3d 457, 460 (8th Cir. 1994) (finding

delay of one hour and twenty minutes while awaiting arrival of a drug dog reasonable

under the circumstances).

Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1925 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/07/2004 Entry ID: 1807854