United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Argued October 3, 2019 

Decided October 15, 2019 

Before 

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge 

AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge 

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge

No. 18-3285 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

KEITH J.D. OFFORD, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Central District of Illinois. 

No. 16-30068-001 

Sue E. Myerscough, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Shortly after he was pulled over for speeding, Keith Offord was arrested for 

identity fraud. Before trial, Offord moved to suppress all evidence from the traffic stop, 

arguing that the state trooper violated the Fourth Amendment by prolonging the stop 

to await a drug-sniffing dog without reasonable suspicion that drug-related criminal 

activity was afoot. The district court denied Offord’s motion. Because the use of the 

drug dog did not unreasonably prolong the stop, we affirm the district court’s 

judgment. 

I. Background 

 Around midnight on August 20, 2015, Offord was driving a rental car north on 

Interstate 55 from St. Louis to Chicago with his passenger, Constance Howay. Illinois 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 
No. 18-3285 Page 2 

State Trooper Christopher Parmley clocked Offord’s speed at 15 miles per hour over the 

posted speed limit and initiated a traffic stop, activating a dashboard camera that 

recorded audio and visual footage of the encounter. 

 Once Offord pulled over, Parmley approached the car and told Offord he had 

stopped him for speeding. Parmley asked where they were coming from and noted a 

large amount of merchandise in the backseat. Offord told Parmley that they had been in 

St. Louis, and that they were “in and out.” 

Parmley then requested identification from the car’s occupants. Offord provided 

a valid driver’s license and a car rental agreement in his name, but Howay had no 

identification, so Parmley requested that she follow him to his squad car, where he 

entered her identifying information into his computer. While the computer processed 

Howay’s information, Parmley asked about her relationship with Offord and their trip 

to St. Louis. The check returned an outstanding warrant for Howay for failure to appear 

in court following an arrest for possession of a controlled substance or paraphernalia. 

Parmley continued to question Howay while he performed a check on Offord, which 

revealed that he had a prior arrest for a “weapon offense” and a conviction for 

“fraud/theft.” 

For the next two minutes, Parmley questioned Howay about her arrest warrant. 

He also radioed for a canine unit. Howay contested the validity of the warrant, insisting 

she had an upcoming court date and had paid a fine in relation to her controlled 

substance arrest. Parmley radioed her information to the dispatcher, who informed him 

that the warrant was valid, and that Howay was “wanted, armed, and dangerous.” The 

dispatcher also confirmed that Parmley was within the geographic bounds of the 

warrant and broadcasted an alert to officers in the area to provide backup. Parmley and 

Howay exited the squad car; he then placed Howay in handcuffs, patted her down, and 

put her back in the squad car. 

Parmley returned to Offord (who was still in the rental car), spoke with him 

about Howay’s arrest, and told him to “hang out” until Parmley knew whether he 

could release Howay on bond. Then, responding to the alert by dispatch, Trooper 

Jefferson arrived as backup, and Parmley briefed him on the situation. One minute 

later, the drug dog arrived with its handler, Officer Cleveland. Parmley began writing 

Offord’s speeding ticket. 

 At Parmley’s request, Jefferson removed Offord from the car and had him close 

the windows for the drug-sniff test. Parmley then asked Offord to confirm his address 

so he could complete the speeding ticket. Parmley summarized the situation to 

Cleveland, and, while the dog conducted a sniff test, Parmley finished writing the 
No. 18-3285 Page 3 

ticket. Thirteen minutes after Offord came to a stop, the dog alerted to the presence of 

drugs in the car. 

 A later search of the vehicle uncovered heroin residue in Howay’s purse and 

evidence of identity fraud—$30,000 worth of new clothing, smartphones, watches, and 

gift cards, alongside receipts with customer names different from Offord’s and 

Howay’s. Offord was arrested for identity theft. 

Before trial, Offord moved to suppress all evidence from the traffic stop, arguing 

that, without reasonable suspicion of drug activity, Parmley prolonged the stop beyond 

the time necessary to issue a speeding ticket. After a hearing, the district court denied 

the motion, concluding that Parmley did not unreasonably prolong the stop. The court 

found that Offord had been lawfully seized and that, given Howay’s outstanding 

warrant, Parmley was reasonably efficient in his investigation. A jury later found 

Offord guilty of bank fraud and three counts of aggravated identity theft. He was 

sentenced to 144 months in prison. 

II. Analysis 

On appeal, Offord argues that the evidence obtained from the traffic stop should 

have been suppressed because Parmley unconstitutionally prolonged the stop to wait 

for a drug-sniffing dog to arrive without any reasonable suspicion of criminal drug 

activity by Offord. This court reviews the district court’s factual findings for clear error 

and questions of law de novo. United States v. Rodriguez-Escalera, 884 F.3d 661, 667 

(7th Cir. 2018). 

Offord argues that the traffic stop was prolonged beyond the time necessary to 

issue a speeding ticket. A dog sniff during a lawful stop does not violate the Fourth 

Amendment, even without reasonable suspicion of drugs, unless the sniff prolongs the 

stop beyond the time reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose of the stop. 

United States v. Lewis, 920 F.3d 483, 491 (7th Cir. 2019) (citing Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 

405, 410 (2005); Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1612 (2015)). But, “[b]ecause 

traffic stops are ‘especially fraught with danger to police officers,’ an officer may also 

take ‘certain negligibly burdensome precautions in order to complete his mission 

safely.’” United States v. Stewart, 902 F.3d 664, 672 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Rodriguez, 

135 S. Ct. at 1616). An officer may demand identification and information from 

passengers and can order passengers to get out of the car during the stop. 

See United States v. Muriel, 418 F.3d 720, 726 (7th Cir. 2005). 
No. 18-3285 Page 4 

Given the circumstances, Parmley was efficient and diligent in his investigation 

of Offord’s speeding violation and Howay’s outstanding warrant, and thus he did not 

unreasonably prolong the stop. During the first few minutes of the encounter, Parmley 

took actions ordinary to a traffic stop. He told Offord he had been pulled over for 

speeding, asked about where Offord and Howay were coming from, requested 

identification and the car-rental agreement, and brought Howay back to his squad car 

to run her information when she failed to produce any identification. See Rodriguez, 

135 S. Ct. at 1615; see also United States v. Childs, 277 F.3d 947, 949 (7th Cir. 2002).

The revelation of Howay’s outstanding arrest warrant and the dispatcher’s 

warning that she might be “armed and dangerous” transformed the encounter from a 

routine traffic stop into one that necessitated additional investigation. A passenger of a 

stopped vehicle is “subject to the [officer’s] control and direction until” officers can 

assure their own safety. Childs, 277 F.3d at 949. Parmley spent the next seven minutes 

investigating the warrant, checking Offord’s identification and criminal history, and 

arresting Howay, actions permissibly within the scope of the traffic stop. 

See United States v. Sanford, 806 F.3d 954, 956 (7th Cir. 2015); see also United States v. 

Martin, 422 F. 3d 597, 602 (7th Cir. 2005). Offord contends that Parmley impermissibly 

lengthened the stop by asking Howay questions unrelated to the speeding violation. 

But an officer may make unrelated inquiries to occupants of a lawfully seized vehicle so 

long as they do not prolong the stop. United States v. Walton, 827 F.3d 682, 687 (7th Cir. 

2016) (citing Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 333 (2009)). Parmley acted prudently, 

asking questions while he performed criminal checks and looked up Offord’s driver’s 

license. 

Offord argues that, even if everything Parmley did up until the point he arrested 

Howay was permissible, Parmley impermissibly lengthened the stop after Howay’s 

arrest—when she no longer presented a danger to officer safety. Offord contends that 

Parmley’s direction to “hang out” after Parmley informed him of Howay’s warrant 

proves the stop was needlessly prolonged. Instead, Offord argues, Parmley should have 

immediately given Offord a speeding citation and sent him on his way. But Offord’s 

attempt to parse the timeline in such a way is unpersuasive, and we decline to dictate 

the order in which a police officer must conduct tasks incident to a traffic stop. In the 

four minutes that passed from Howay’s arrest to the drug dog alert, Parmley did not 

expand the scope of the stop. Parmley had not yet worked on the speeding citation 

because he had just processed Howay’s outstanding arrest warrant, and Trooper 

Jefferson had arrived on scene and required briefing. Once Parmley briefed Jefferson, 

Cleveland arrived with the drug dog and Parmley updated him. While the other 

officers conducted the sniff test, Parmley obtained Offord’s current address to complete 
No. 18-3285 Page 5 

the speeding ticket. The sniff test lasted 14 seconds and was over before Parmley gave 

the ticket to Offord—this all happened within minutes of Howay’s arrest. 

Because we have concluded that the traffic stop was not unreasonably 

prolonged, it is unnecessary to decide whether Parmley independently had reason to 

suspect drug activity and order the canine sniff. 

We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.