*

The Honorable Ronald Longstaff, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4047

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Edwardo Perez Gaxiola, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 12, 2005

Filed: October 5, 2005 

___________

Before RILEY, LAY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After an Iowa state trooper found cocaine in Edwardo Perez Gaxiola’s vehicle,

the Government charged him with possession with intent to distribute cocaine.

Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court*

 denied Gaxiola’s motion to

suppress, United States v. Gaxiola, 317 F. Supp. 2d 980 (S.D. Iowa 2004), and

Gaxiola conditionally pleaded guilty. Gaxiola appeals the denial of his suppression

motion, and we affirm.
-2-

Based on evidence at the hearing, the district court properly found the

following facts. See United States v. Sanchez, 417 F.3d 971, 974 (8th Cir. 2005)

(reviewing factual findings for clear error). While driving a vehicle on the interstate

in Iowa, Gaxiola was stopped by a trooper for failure to display a front license plate.

After Gaxiola produced his driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance, the

trooper returned to his patrol car with Gaxiola to run a computerized check on

Gaxiola’s documents. While waiting for a response, the trooper asked Gaxiola where

he was going and the purpose of his trip. Gaxiola told the trooper he and his female

passenger were going to Chicago to announce their engagement to her parents. When

the trooper returned to Gaxiola’s vehicle to obtain identification from Gaxiola’s

passenger, however, the passenger told the trooper she and Gaxiola were going to

Chicago to visit her aunt and they had no special reason for the trip. The trooper then

returned to his patrol car to check the passenger’s identification. When the trooper

made a second trip to the vehicle to return the passenger’s identification, the trooper

asked her where her parents lived, and she stated they lived in California. 

The trooper went back to the patrol car and completed the traffic stop by

issuing a warning ticket to Gaxiola and returning his driver’s license, registration, and

insurance papers. The traffic stop had lasted only thirteen minutes. As Gaxiola was

exiting the patrol car, the trooper asked Gaxiola if he could ask him a few more

questions, and Gaxiola agreed. The trooper asked whether Gaxiola had any illegal

narcotics or weapons in his vehicle, and Gaxiola responded he did not. The trooper

then asked Gaxiola for consent to search the vehicle. After Gaxiola gave his verbal

consent, he signed a written consent form filled out and read to him by the trooper.

During the roadside search, the trooper saw alterations to the car suggesting a secret

compartment, so he asked Gaxiola whether he could have the vehicle moved from the

highway for a more extensive search. Gaxiola agreed, and a more extensive search

uncovered a compartment holding eighty-eight pounds of cocaine. 
-3-

On appeal, Gaxiola contends the trooper unconstitutionally expanded the scope

of the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, rendering his

consent invalid. According to Gaxiola, his consent was the product of an unlawful

prolonged detention. We disagree.

A trooper who observes a traffic violation has probable cause to stop the

vehicle and conduct a reasonable investigation. Id. A reasonable investigation

includes requesting the driver’s license and the vehicle’s registration, running a

computerized check on those documents, and asking about the occupants’ destination,

route, and purpose. Id. at 975; United States v. Blaylock, 421 F.3d 758, 767 (8th Cir.

2005); United States v. $404,905 in United States Currency, 182 F.3d 643, 647 (8th

Cir. 1999). A trooper may also request identification from passengers during a traffic

stop, see United States v. Slater, 411 F.3d 1003, 1004-05 (8th Cir. 2005), and question

them to verify information given by the driver, Sanchez, 417 F.3d at 975. Conflicting

stories may raise reasonable suspicion justifying expansion of the stop’s scope and

detention of the occupants. Id. Reasonable suspicion permits a trooper to ask

questions not directly related to the initial traffic stop, and consent given in the course

of such questioning is valid if given voluntarily. United States v. Gomez Serena, 368

F.3d 1037, 1040 (8th Cir. 2004). Even without reasonable suspicion, if an encounter

after a traffic stop’s completion is consensual, then a trooper may ask questions

unrelated to the stop and request consent to search the vehicle. United States v.

Santos-Garcia, 313 F.3d 1073, 1078 (8th Cir. 2002). 

Here, the trooper could properly stop Gaxiola for the traffic violation, have

Gaxiola step back to the patrol car while checking his license, registration, and

criminal history, and question Gaxiola about the purpose of his trip. It was also

permissible for the trooper to question Gaxiola’s passenger about the trip’s purpose.

Contrary to Gaxiola’s assertion, none of the trooper’s questions exceeded the range

of questions an officer is permitted to ask during a lawful traffic stop. Once the

trooper returned Gaxiola’s identification and issued a warning ticket, Gaxiola had
-4-

everything necessary to continue on his trip. See id. The trooper asked Gaxiola

whether he could ask him a few questions, and Gaxiola consented. See Blaylock, 421

F.3d at 768. At that point, Gaxiola had been stopped less than fifteen minutes, and

there is simply no indication that the post-stop encounter was a seizure rather than

consensual. Given Gaxiola’s consent to further questioning, the trooper could

properly ask Gaxiola whether he had any drugs in the vehicle, and Gaxiola’s consent

to search given during the course of the consensual questioning was valid. See

Santos-Garcia, 313 F.3d at 1078. Because Gaxiola consented to the additional

questioning after the trooper completed the traffic stop, we need not decide whether

the conflicting answers given by Gaxiola and his passenger gave the officer

reasonable suspicion to question Gaxiola about drugs. See id.

We thus affirm the district court.

______________________________