### In th e



# United States Court of Appeals Forthe Seventh Cir c uit

No. 17-2334

U NI T E D S TAT E S OF A M E RI C A , Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

M ARI O A. R OD RI GU E Z -E S C AL E R A , Defendant-Appellee.

Appea l fro m the U ni ted S ta tes Di stri ct Co urt fo r the

S o uthern Di stri ct o f Il l i no i s
. No . 1 6 -CR -3 0 1 1 4 -S MY — Sta ci M. Ya ndle , Judg e.

A RGUE D J ANUAR

Y 1 0, 2018

— D E C I D E D M ARC H 7, 2 018

Befor e W OOD, Chief Judge, H AMI L TON, C ircuit Judge, and B U C K L O , District Jud

ge *

. D e fe n d ant-appellee Mar i o Rodr i guezEscaler a (“Rodr i guez”) a n d hi s fi ancée Blanca Mor an w er e
ar rested and char ged wi th possessi on wi th in tent to di str ib ute methamphetamine in v i olati on of 21 U.S .C. § 841, after poli ce di scov er ed a lar ge amount of methamphetamine and case in

__________________ *Of the No rthern Di stri ct o f Il l i no i s, si tti ng b y desi gna ti o n.2 No. 17-2334
Mor a n ’s vehi cle dur ing a tr affi c stop. Befor e the di str i ct c our t, Rodr i guez and Mor an each mov ed on F o u r th Amendment gr ounds t o s uppr ess the ev i dence obtai ned in the vehi c le
sear ch. Concludin g that the e v id e n ce was der i ved fr om an unlawfully extended tr affi c stop, the cour t gr anted b o th moti ons. On app e a l, the gov er nment challenges the gr ant of Rodr i guez’s moti on to suppr ess. We affi r m
. I. On October 4, 2016, Illinoi s State Tr ooper Kenneth Patter son obser v ed a c ar abr uptly s wi tch lanes in fr ont of a tr uck wi thout using a tur n si gnal on Inter state 70 in souther n Il lin o i s. Patter son deci ded to pull the car ov er for the tr affi c infr acti on. See 625 ILCS § § 5/11-703(a), 5/11-804. Equi pped wi th

a dashboar d v i deo camer a, Patt e r son’s v ehi cle recor ded the ensuing tr affi c stop. Once the car stopped, Patter son appr oached the p assenger si de of the v ehi cle to find Rodr i guez in the front passenger seat and Mor an in the dr i v er ’s seat. Patt e r son gr eeted them and asked Mor an to pr ov i de her li cense, r egi s tr ati on, and pr oof of insur a nce. Mor a n p r omptly c ompli ed. Her l i c ense indi cated that she was fr om Par amount, Cali for ni a, a ci ty in Los Angeles County. After gather ing Mor an’s documentati on, Patter son told Mor an why he s topped her a nd e xplained that he intended to i ssue her a wr i tten war ning for her tr affi c v i olati on. He asked her to accompany hi m in hi s squad car whi le he ran her infor mati on and i ssued the warning. Mor an agr eed. Patter so n l ed Mor an to the fr ont passenger seat of hi s squad

car then r etur n ed to Mor an’s vehi cle to ask Rodr i guez for hi s i denti fi cati on. As Rodr i guez r etr i ev ed hi s document a t i on, Patter son inqui r ed wher e he a nd Mor an wer e headed. Rodr i

-No. 17-2334 3
guez answer ed Penns y l v a n i a. Then h e h anded Patter son hi s Mexi can i d enti fi cati on c ar d and hi s Mexic a n dr i v er ’s l i cense. Patter son kept the id e nti fi c ati on car d and h anded b ack the dr i v er ’s li cense befor e r etur n ing to hi s squad car

. Back in h i s v ehi c le, P a t t e r son r ev i ewed Mor an’s and Rodr i guez’s docu m e n ts and began to questi on Mor an about her tr av el p lans. Mor an told Patter son that she and Rodr i guez, her fi ancé, h ad come fr om Los Angeles and wer e he a d i n g to New Yor k Ci ty to v i si t the ci ty for the fi rst ti me whi le s he was
on vacati on fr om her j ob as a tax pr epar er a n d insur ance br oker

. Patter son asked wher e s he and Rodr i guez w er e planning to go in N ew Yor k. Mor an r epli ed that she wanted to
s e e Manhattan, Br ooklyn, and the S tatue of Liber ty. W h e n Patter son asked how long the tr i p would last, Mor an told hi m that she had two weeks off fr om wor k. S he and Rodr i guez di d not hav e lodgi ng booked in New Yor k yet, she told P atter son, but they would look for a hotel when they ar r i v ed in the c i ty. About ei ght minutes into the tr affi c stop, Patter s on di scov er e d that Mor an’s Cali for ni a dr i v er ’s li cense was suspended. He in f o r m ed Mor an, who was a ppar ently sur pr i sed by the news, and asked whether Rodr i guez had a li cense so that he could dr i v e instead. Mor an s ai d that he had a Mexi can l i cense,
so P atter son r etur ned to Mor an’s v ehi cle to collect i t fr om hi m. Mor a n r emained in the squad car . Whi le Rodr i guez r etr i ev ed hi s li c ense, Patter son pr ob e d for m or e infor m ati on about the

c o uple’s appar ently confli cting tr av el plans. He asked Rodr i

guez what ci ty in Penn s y l v a n ia h e and Mor an wer e goi ng to
v i si t. Rodr i guez, who ev i dently had li m i ted Engli s h ski l ls, indi cated that he di d not know. Patter son then asked h ow long they w er e goi ng to be gone; R o dr ig u ez s ai d one or two days.4 No. 17-2334
Fi nally, Patter son asked i f they wer e v i si ti ng fr i ends or f ami ly ther e. Rodr i guez sai d no. After th is br i ef exchange wi th Rodr i guez, Patter son
r etur n ed to hi s squad car
. About elev en minutes had passed since he ini ti ated the tr affi c stop, a nd Patter son now had all of the infor mati on he needed fr om Mor an and Rodr i guez to i ssue the tr affi c c i tati ons and send them on thei r way. B ut Patter son had gr own suspi ci ous of the couple’s tr av el plans and deci ded to h a v e a n ar coti cs-d e tecti on dog sni ff Mor an’s v ehi cle. Patter son could see fr om hi s in-v ehi cle computer, howev er, that hi s d e p ar tment’s K-9 uni t was occupi ed wi th another tr affi c stop. Patter son took near ly twenty-two mi nutes to i ssue Mor an thr ee routi ne tr affi c ci tati ons—one ti c k e t for dr i v ing wi th a suspended li cense, one wr i tten war ning for fai ling to si gnal when changing lanes, and one w r it ten war ning for i mpr oper
o v e r taki ng. Befor e he star ted wr i tin g the ci tati ons, Patter s o n asked Mor a n for mor e d etai ls about the c ouple’s tr av el i ti ner ar y. He inqui r ed whether she and Rodr i guez planned to stop anywher e else on thei r way to New Yor k. Mor an s ai d that they di d not. Tr oubled by the appar ent confli ct, Patter s on then asked i f Rodr i guez knew that they we r e g o ing to New Yor k. Mor a n smi led and explai ned that s h e told Rodr i guez that they

wer e goi ng to P ennsylv ani a. When Patter son asked why, Mor a n sai d she wanted the v i si t t o N e w Yor k Ci ty to be a
sur pr i se. Upon fur ther questi oni ng, she explai ned that Rodr i

guez knew that they wo u l d b e g one for two weeks. S he also told Patter son that Rodr i guez was not cur r ently employed b ut that he would be looki ng for w or k in constr ucti on once they

r etur n ed to Los Angeles.No. 17-2334 5
Ov er the next sev er al minutes, P atter son wor ked at h i s inv ehi cle comp u t e r , occasi onally chatting mor e w i th Mor an, as he li s tened to hi s poli ce r a di o wai tin g for the K-9 uni t to become av ai l able. Patter son ev entually hear d on the r adi o that the tr a ffi c stop holding up the K-9 uni t had ended in a n ar r est. Patter son messaged S tate Tr ooper John B audino, the K-9 uni t offi cer, to s ee i f he was a v ai lable. Not unti l Baudino confi rmed that h e w a s av ai lable and on hi s way di d P atter son begin
wr i ting Mor an’s ti cket for dr i v ing wi th a suspended li cense. Baudino raced to Patter son’s locati on, a r r i v ing about ten or elev en m inu t e s a ft e r P a t t e r s o n’ s r e qu e s t and near l y thi r ty-thr ee minutes into the tr a ffi c stop. As soon as he saw that Baudino’s

v ehi cle was behin d h im , Patter son handed Mor an her tr affi c ti cket and wr i tten w ar nings, along w i th h e r l icense, regi str a ti on, and pr oof of insur ance. He then instr ucted Mor an to stay in the s qu a d car whi le the K-9 u ni t s ni ffed her v ehi cle. Patter son walked to Mor a n’s car and told Rodr i guez to r oll u p hi s window. Baudino w alked h i s na r coti cs-detecti on dog ar ound Mor a n ’s car twi ce. The d og di d not aler t hi m to the p r esence of any contr aband. Despi te the negati ve d og s n i ff, Patter son
r emained u nconv inced. He r etur ned to h i s squad car, wher e M or an was sti ll detai ned, and r esumed questi oni ng her

. H e asked h er whe t h e r ther e w as anythi ng i llegal in her v ehi cle. S he sai d t h e r e wa s not. He explai ned that h e j ust wanted to make sur e that she and Rodr i guez wer e actually goi ng to New Yor k. He in qui r ed about Mor an’ s lu g g a g e and whether anyone had gi v en h er a ny luggage to take along to New Yor k. S he sai d she only had he r l uggage. Patter s on’s questi oni ng concluded wi th the followi ng exchange:6 No. 17-2334
Patter son: Okay. You’r e fr ee to go and ev er ythi ng but I’m j ust concer ned that ther e mi ght be somethin g i llegal insi d e t h e car
. Usually, most people don’t say, “Hey, let’s go on a tr i p .” And then, they

... it’s a sur pr i se, they go to New Yo r k

. It’s ki nd of out of the or dinar y I should say. I know that pr obably doesn’t make any sense to you. Mor a n : No. Patter son: Does that n ot make any sense to you? A str ange tr i p? Mor a n : No. I take my v acati ons. Patter son: Yeah, but telli ng s omeone you ar e actually goi ng to Pennsylv ani a and then actually you ar e goi ng to New Yor k, that’s ki n d of out of the or dinar y as far as a tr i p goes, i ti ner a r y wi se. Can I sear ch that v ehi cle and i ts contents ... Mor a n : S ur e. Patter son:
... to make sur e ther e i s n othi ng i llegal, i s that all r i ght? Mor a n : (nods yes) Patter son: I’ll j ust hav e you s tay in th e vehi c le and I’ll hav e [Rodr i guez] step out. Patter son and Baudino then c onducted a s ear ch of Mor an’s

v ehi cle. In her tr unk, they uncov er ed a ppr oxi mately 7.5 pounds of m ethamphetamine hi dden in two pi eces of luggage. In Mor an’s pur se, they di scov e r e d n e ar ly $28,000 in c ash. Rodr i guez c l a imed owner shi p of the dr ugs, Mor an clai medNo. 17-2334 7

owner s hi p of the m oney. The offi c er s placed them both under

ar rest. Mor a n and Rodr i guez w er e each char ged w i th one count of possessi on of m ethamphetamin e wi th intent to di str i bute. See 21 U.S .C. § 841(a)(1). Both fi led pr etr i al moti ons to suppr ess the dr ug ev i dence sei zed fr om Mor an’s v ehi cle, clai min g that Patter son u nlawfully detai ne d th e m b e y o n d th e t i m e n e c essar y to complete the tr affi c stop and that Mor an h a d n o t fr eely gi v en her consent to the sear ch. The di s tr i c t cour t he l d a two-day ev i denti ar y hear ing on Mor a n ’s moti on to s uppr ess, and, by a gr eement of the par ti es, adopted i ts ev i d enti ar y findings in Rodr i guez’s c ase in li eu of

an addi ti onal ev i denti a r y hea r ing. At Mor an’s suppr essi on hear ing, Patter son testi fi ed about s ev er a l factor s that tr i gger ed hi s suspi ci on dur ing the tr affi cstop. He told the di str i ct cour t that when he fi r s t appr oached Mor an’s fr ont pa s s e n g er window after making the s top, he smelled a “ v er y pungent” of

a n unlawful sei zur e. The gov er nment appeals fr om t h is d e ci si on, ar guing that n ei ther the tr affi c stop nor the v ehi cl e
sear ch v i olated Rodr i guez’s Four th Amendment r i ghts. II. We employ “a mi xed standar d of r ev i ew on moti ons to suppr ess, r ev i ewing the di str i ct cour t’s factual d eter minati ons for c l ear er r or and de novo i ts ulti mate deter minati on about whether the poli ce h ad suffi ci ent gr ounds to stop or sear ch the indi v i du a l

. ” U n ited States v. Wilbourn , 7 99 F.3d 900, 908 (7th Ci r
. 2015) (ci ting O r n e l a s v. United States , 517 U.S

. 690, 699 (1996)). T he Four th Amendment guar a ntees the r i ght to be fr ee fr om “unr easonab l e s e a r ch e s an d s e iz u r e s ” b y th e g ov er nment.8 No. 17-2334
Thi s pr otecti on “extend[s] to b r i ef inv es t ig ator y stops of per sons or v ehi cles that fall shor t of tr a di ti onal ar r est.” United States v
. Arvizu , 534 U.S

. 2 66, 273 (2002). T h us, whenev er a poli ce offi cer deci des to stop a vehi cle, the stop must meet the

r easonableness r equ ir ements of the Four th Amendment. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S

. 648, 663 (1979). If a sear ch or sei zur e v i olates the Four th Amendment, cour ts wi ll exclude

ev i dence gai n ed fr om that vi olati on in j udi ci a l pr oceed ings agai nst the pe r s o n in

j u r ed. Wilbourn , 799 F.3d at 910; see also Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S

. 1, 2 9 ( 1 9 68) (“[E]v i dence may not be intr oduced i f i t w as di scov er ed by means of a sei zur e and
sear ch whi ch wer e not r easonably r elated in sco p e t o the j usti fi cati on for thei r ini ti ati on.”). The Four th A m e n d m e nt’ s p rotecti ons ar e “per sonal r i ghts” that “may not be vi car i ously asser ted.” Rakas v. Illinois , 4 39 U.S

. 128, 1 33–34 (1978). To challenge ev i dence obtai ned in an unlawful sear ch, a per son must s how that h e had a “legi ti m ate expectati on of pr i v acy” in the ar e a s e a r ched. Id. at 143, 149. Typi cally, a p a s s e n g e r q u a p a s s e n g er lacks a legi ti mate expectati on of pr i v acy in a sear ched vehi cle, unless he can sh o w that he has some possessor y inter est in i t. Se e id. at 148–49; Wilbourn , 799 F.3d at 908. A passenger wi thout standing to challenge a v ehi c le sear ch may nev er theless challenge the l egali ty of a tr affi c stop. In Brendlin v. California , 551 U.S

. 249 (2007), the S upr eme Cour t held that because a tr affi c s top sei zes all v ehi cle occupants, a
v eh icle passenger has standing to suppr ess ev i dence der i v ed fr om an unlawful tr affi c stop. I d. at 255–59; Wilbourn , 799 F.3d at 908 (a p assenger has standing to challenge ev i dence der i v ed fr om an i lle g a l stop but n ot ev i d ence der i v ed fr om an i llegal
sear ch a fter a lawful stop). That in cludes ev i dence obtained inNo. 17-2334 9

a sear ch resulting fr om an unlawful stop. See Uni t e d S tates v. Sanford, 806 F.3d 9 54, 959 (7th Ci r
. 2015). H er e, the d i str i ct cour t concluded that Rodr i guez di d not hav e standing to challenge the sear ch i tself because h e lacked any p r oper ty or p ossessor y inter ests in the v ehi cle. Rodr i guez’s standing to challenge the dr ug ev i d ence uncov er ed in Mor a n’s v ehi cle thus depends on whether the tr affi c stop was unlawful. To pull a c a r ov er for a br i ef inv esti gato r y stop, a poli ce offi cer must h a v e “at leas t [an] ar ti culable and r easonable suspi ci on” that the par ti cular per son stopped i s br eaki ng the law. P rouse, 440 U.S

. at 663. Her e, ther e i s no di spute that, after obser v ing Mor an abr uptly change lanes w i thout si gnaling, Patter son had a lawful basi s for ini ti ati ng the stop. See 625 ILCS § § 5 / 11–703(a), 5/11–804; United States v
. Muriel , 4 18 F.3d 72 0 , 724 ( 7 t h Ci r
. 2 005) (offi cer - obser ved tr affi c v i olati on tr i gger s pr obable c ause to stop). But a sei zur e that i s “l a w ful at i ts incepti on” can nonetheless v i olate the Four th Amendment i f i t is “pr olonged beyond the ti me r easonably r equi r ed to co m plete” the ini ti al mi ssi on of the stop. Illinois v
. Caballes , 543 U.S

. 405, 407 (2005) (ci tin g United States v. J a cobsen , 466 U.S

. 109, 124 (1984)). That i s what the di str i ct cour t concluded happened her e. The S upr eme Cour t consi der ed the r easonable d ur ati on of tr affi c stops in Rodriguez v. United States , 135 S

. Ct. 1609 (2015). In that case, a poli ce offi c er lawfully pulled a v ehi cle ov er for a tr affi c v i olati on, i ssued a wr i tten war ning for that v i olati on, then conti nued to detai n the v ehi cle a nd i ts dr i v er whi le he conducted a d og sni ff. Id. at 1613. The C o u r t held that the offi ce r ’ s p r olonged detenti on of the v ehi cle, ev en i f i t was sli ght, was unlawful, unless i t was suppor ted by a r easonable suspi ci on of cr i m in a l a c t iv i ty in d e p e n dently suffi ci ent to j usti fy10 No. 17-2334

a sei zur e, a n i ssue the Cour t left to the lower cour ts to ev a l uate
on r emand. Id. at 1615–17. The author i ty to d etain a v ehi cle and i ts occupants for a poli ce-obser v ed tr affi c v i olati on, the Cour t
r easo n e d , ends when the “tasks ti ed to the tr affi c infr acti on
ar e—o r r e a sonably should hav e b een—completed.” Id. at 1614. Absent r easonable s u s pi ci on, then, law enfor cement may not extend a tr affi c stop wi th measur es li ke a d og sni ff unr elated to the mi ssi on of the stop. The gov er nment does n ot di spute that Patter son extended the t r a f f i c s top beyond the ti me necessary to i ssue the tr affi c ci tati ons but ar gues that Patter son had r easonable s uspi ci on to extend the stop. To meet th e r e a s o n ab l e - s u s p i c i o n r e qu i r ement,
an offi cer must h av e “a par ti cular i zed and obj ecti v e basi s” for suspectin g the per sons detai n ed of br eaking the law. Heie n v
. North Carolina , 135 S

. Ct. 530, 536 (2014). Although r easonable suspi ci on “embodi es somethin g less than pr obable cause,” i t
r equi r es mor e tha n a hunch or inchoate suspi ci on. Wilbourn , 799 F.3d at 909. Thus, to j usti f y a “par ti cular in tr usi on [a] poli ce offi cer must be able t o p o int to speci fi c and ar ti culable facts whi ch, ta k e n together wi th r ati onal infer ences fr om those facts,

r easonably war r ant th[e] intr usi on.” Terry, 392 U.S

. at 21. When ev aluating reasonable suspi c i on, cour t s m ust
c o n s i d e r “ th e t o t ali ty of the ci r cumstanc e s

— the wh o l e p i c tu r e
. ” United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S

. 411, 417 (1981). A “di v i de-andconquer a nalysi s” that exami nes each fact o r suppor ti ng
r eason able suspi ci on in i solati on i s not per mi tted. District of C olumbia v. Wesby, 138 S

. Ct. 577, 588 ( 2018). Impor tantly , howev er, the totali ty-of-th e -ci r cumstances test does not b ar
cour ts fr om di scussing factor s separ ately. See, e.g. , Wesby, 138 S

. Ct. a t 586–88 (di scussing each factor suppor ti ng pr obabl e
cause s e p a r ately b efor e consi d er ing the combined effect ofNo. 17-2334 11

t h ose f actor s). It si mply r equi r es that c our ts c onsi der t he

r easonable infer ences that a law enfor cement offi cer could dr aw fr om the obj ecti v e facts in combin ati on. The g o v e rnm e n t contends that the di str i c t cour t mi sappli ed the totali ty-of-the-ci r cumstances tes t

. I t ar gues that the cour t
ov er looked s o m e of the factor s suppor tin g Patter son’s suspi

ci on and i m pr oper ly ev aluated and r ej ected each of the other factor s in i solati on. In the gov er nment’s v i ew, the factor s i t i denti fi ed in the di str i ct cour t—(1) that Mor an and Rodr i guez appear ed ner v ous; (2) that the couple was tr av eling fr om a “maj or nar coti cs di str ib u t ion center, ” i.e. , Mor a n’s home of gr eater L os Angeles; (3) that the two pr esented c onfli c ti ng tr av el plans; and (4) the pr esence of multi ple ai r fr eshener s in the car —v i ewed together thr ough the lens of Patter son’s per sonal tr aining and exper i ence, justi fi ed Patter son’s deci si on to pr olong the detenti on to conduct a dog s ni ff. W e agr ee wi th the di str i ct cour t, howev er, that taken together , these factor s di d not establi sh r easonable suspi c i on. Fi r st, whi l e c our ts must consi d er the factor s s uppor ti ng an offi cer ’s suspi ci on cumulatively, they need not accept all of an offi cer ’s pr offer ed j usti fi cati on s at face v alue. Reasonable suspi ci on must be suppor ted by obj ecti v e a nd ar ti culable facts, and the di str i ct c our t as fact-finder i s enti tled to wei gh the

ev i dence pr esented at a suppr essi on hear ing. “[B]ecause the

r esoluti on of a mo t io n to suppr ess i s necessar i ly fact-speci fi c, we gi v e speci al defer ence t o the di str i ct c our t that hear d the testi mony and obser v ed the wi tnesses a t the suppr essi on hear ing.” U nited States v. Johnson , 3 8 3 F.3d 5 38, 542 (7th Ci r
. 2004) ( quoti ng Unite d S t ates v. Sholola, 1 24 F.3d 803, 811 (7th Ci r
. 1997)) (in ter nal quotati on mar ks omi tted); see also Ornelas , 517 U.S . at 699 (“[A] r ev i ewing cour t should take car e both to12 No. 17-2334

r ev i ew findings of hi stor i cal fact only for clear er r or and to gi v e due wei ght t o in fer ences dr awn fr om those facts by r esi dent j udges and local law enfor cement offi c er s
. ”). In th is c a s e, the di str i c t cour t r ev i ewed the ev i dence and found that Mor an and Rodr i guez di d not act susp ic io u sly

ner vous. We see n o clear er r or in the cour t’s conclusi on. The

v i deo of the tr affi c sto p—the most r eli able ev i dence of the detai nees’ demeanor —shows a r elati v ely c alm Mor an answer ing all of Patter son’s questi ons whi le detai ned in Pa t t er son’s

v ehi cle for ne a r l y t hi r ty minutes. And the audi o footage of Rodr i guez ’ s p r e - s e a r ch inter acti ons wi th Patter s on r ev eals that R o d r ig uez answer ed all questi ons di r ectly posed to h i m an d compli ed wi th all of Patt er son’s r equests, ev en i f he ini ti ally di d not make eye contact. Cf. United States v
. Br ow n , 1 88 F.3d 860, 863 (7th Ci r
. 1 9 9 9) (wei ghing a dr i v er ’s “v er y ner v ous” appear a nce a nd hi s fai lur e to make eye contact dur ing a tr affi c stop for speedin g, along wi th the smell of mar ij ua n a and FBI
sur v e il la nce of the car ’s inv olv ement in dr ug sales, as factor s suppor ti n g r easonable suspi ci on). Whi l e ner v ousness i s
cer ta in ly a factor that can s uppor t r easonable suspi ci on, see Illinois v. Wa r d l o w , 528 U.S

. 1 1 9, 124 (2000), the cour t was not
r equi r ed to cr edi t Patter son’s te s t imony that the couple appear ed n er v ous when the cour t’s own r ev i ew of th e t r affi c stop footage led i t to the opposi te conclusi on. The di str i ct cour t also gav e li ttle wei ght to s e v e r a l other factor s on whi ch Patter son r eli ed. For instance, Patter son told t he cour t that he found i t “v er y s i gni fi cant” that Mor an and Rodr i guez ini ti ally gav e di ffer ent a nswer s when P a t ter son asked them wher e th ey wer e goi ng. But as the di str i ct cour t
n o t e d, th e in fo r m a t i o n M or an subseq u e nt ly p r o v i d e d

— th a t th e tr i p to New Yor k was a sur pr i se, and that she had told Rodr i

-No. 17-2334 13
guez they wer e goi n g to Pennsylv ani a—cor r obor ated Rodr i

guez’s answer, obj ecti v ely di min i shing t h e possi ble confli ct. Whi le an offi cer does not n eed to r ule o u t innocent explanati ons for conduct that appear s s uspi ci ous at fi r st blush, see Arvizu , 534 U.S

. at 2 7 7, a cour t may consi der how facts later obtai n ed mi ti gate or di spel suspi ci on. See Terry, 392 U.S

. at 28 (consi der ing whether any of the defendant ’ s conduct “ gav e [the a rr esting offi cer ] suffi c i ent r eason to negate [hi s] hypothesi s” that cr i min a l a cti v i ty w a s a fo o t )

. Mor eov er, a couple taki ng
a spontaneous road tr i p to New Yor k Ci ty i s har dly i mplausi

ble or sur p r i sing. The fact that o n e o f the tr av eler s was una w ar e of the ulti mate destinati on may b e u nusual, but gi v en Mor a n ’s explanati on, we do not t h ink the di str i ct er r ed b y gi v ing li ttle wei ght to thi s detai l. The pr esence of cli p-in ai r fr eshener s in the vehi cle d oes not change our analysi s. 1 The di str i c t c our t r eco gniz e d th a t b e c a u se ai r fr eshener s ar e someti mes used to mask the s cent of nar coti cs, an excessi v e ai r fr eshener pr esence in a v ehi cle can, in combinati on wi th other indi cator s of dr ug tr affi cking or concealment, justi f

y extendi n g a s top. See, e.g., United States v. Fuse , 391 F.3d 924, 929 (8th Ci r
. 2004) (pr esence of ai r fr eshener,

1 The pa rti es a gree here tha t the di stri ct co urt ma de a n erro r i n i ts wri tten
o rder when i t s ta ted tha t Pa tterso n o n l y t esti fi ed t o o b se r vi ng two a i r fresheners i n the fro nt cab o f the v ehi cl e a nd no t a n a i r freshener i n the b a ck. P a tterso n testi fi ed to no ti ci ng a l l three duri ng the sto p. No n ethel ess, i n i ts ea rl i er o ra l fi n di ngs, the co urt co nsi dered b o th the fro nt sea t a n d b a ck
sea t a i r fresheners, a nd determi ned tha t the numb er o f a i r fresheners—the di s tri c t c o u rt sa i d fo ur, b ut we o n ly see ev i dence o f three—wa s n ot

“ ex cessi v e o r u nusua l

... to tri gger s uspi ci o n, ev en a l o ng wi th the o d o r .” The di screpa ncy ab o ut ho w many a i r fresheners Pa tterso n ob serv ed i n the

ca r i s sl i ght eno ugh tha t i t do es no tcha nge the a na l ysi s
.14 No. 17-2334

a pr i or ar r est r ecor d , the absence of the car ’s o w n e r , a nd the dr i v er ’s u nusual explanati ons for v i si ti ng Kansas Ci ty, among other r easons, justi fi ed an e x t e n d ed s top). A non-excessiv e pr esence of ai r fr eshener s, howev er, may show nothin g mor e than a car owner ’s pr efer ence for the smell of ai r fr eshener s or desi r e to cov er up other , l aw fu l odor s. See United Stat es v. Guerrero, 374 F.3d 584, 590 (8th Ci r
. 2004). S o w h il e w e a gr ee wi th the gov er nment that the pr esence of ai r fr eshener s should be c onsi de r e d as par t of the whole pi ctur e, w e conclude that the di str i ct cour t di d j ust that and deter mined that the thr ee or four small sti cks c li pped into the car ’s ai r v ents w er e not “excessi v e” to the poi nt of suggesting unlawful acti v i ty. That finding i s not clear ly er r oneous. The gov er nment next asser ts that the dis t r i c t cour t ov er looked the si gni fi cance o f the fact that Mor a n and Rodr i guez
wer e coming fr om Los Angeles. But the di str i ct cour t’s wr i tten
or der acknowledged that Patter son c onsi der ed Los Angeles’s

r eputati on as a “known dr ug di str i buti on p oi nt,” and the cour t
e xpli ci tly c onsi der ed the factor in i ts or a l findings at Mor an’ s suppr essi on hear ing. We do no t t h ink the cour t er r ed in di scounting the p r o b ati v e v alue of the fact that the couple began thei r tr i p in gr eater Los Angeles, Mor a n ’s home and the countr y’s second most populous ci ty. See Reid v
. G eorgia, 448 U.S

. 438, 441 (1980) (c o n c l u ding that ci r cumstances that “descr ibe[d] a v er y lar ge categor y of pr esumably innoc e nt tr av eler s” di d not suppor t r easonable suspi ci on). The gov er n m e n t also contends that the di str i c t cour t di d not pr oper ly consi der Patter son’s exper i ence as a poli ce offi cer in i ts analysi s. Th e t o tali ty-of-the-ci r cumstances test “allows offi cer s to dr aw on thei r own exper i ence and speci ali zed tr ain ing to make infer ences fr om and d educti ons about theNo. 17-2334 15
cumulativ e infor mat io n av a i lable to them that mi ght well elude an untr ained per son.” Arvizu , 5 3 4 U

. S

. at 273–74 (inter nal quotati on mar ks omi tt e d)

. I n other wor ds, a cour t may gi v e
mor e wei ght to a poli ce offi cer ’s assessment of c er tai n ci r cumstances due to hi s par ti cular exper i ence wi th s uch matter s. See, e.g., United States v. Riley, 493 F.3d 803, 809 (7t h C i r
. 2 007) (cr edi ti n g an offi cer ’s speci fi c obser v ati ons of a s uspected b ank

r obber y whi ch wer e dr awn fr om hi s exper i ence inv esti gati ng bank r obber i es). The gov er nment ar gues that the d i s tr i ct cour t fai led to consi der how Patter s on’s e x pe r i ence wi th hi ghway dr ug inter di cti on i n for med hi s v i ew of the factor s suppor ti ng hi s suspi ci on. But, a gai n, the di st r i ct cour t di d r ecogni ze that Patter son’s suspi ci ons wer e “based on hi s tr a inin g and exper i

ence.” Mor eov er, because i t consi der ed how the other factor s Patter son obser v ed—confli ctin g tr a v el plans, ai r fr eshener s, and per c ei v ed ner vo u s n e ss—can, wi th other facts, suppor t
r e a s o nable suspi ci on, the di s tr i ct c our t di d account for the i mpor tance that such detai l s can hold for law enfor cement. That t h e c our t u lti m ately d eter min ed that the obj ecti v e facts fell shor t of r eas o n a b l e suspi ci on in thi s case does not mean t h at i t ov er looked how Patter son’s exper i ence and tr aining may hav e caused hi m t o e v a luate a i r fr eshener s or undev eloped tr av el plans di ffer ently than other s. In s ummar y, at the ti me Patter son r equested the dog s ni ff, he knew that the couple was coming fr o m t he Los Angeles

a r ea, wher e at least Mor an r esi ded; that Mor a n had a few a i r fr eshener s in her car ; that the couple d i d not hav e c oncr ete tr av el ar r angements, but that Mor an was usin g h er two-week

v a cati on to s ur pr i se Rodr i gu e z w i th a tr i p to New Yor k; and that Rodr i guez di d not ini ti ally look up at Patter son when the offi cer appr oached the v ehi cle. At least two of these char ac-16 No. 17-2334

ter i sti cs—the pr esence of a few ai r fr eshener s and or i gi nating fr om Los Angeles—could descr i b e “a v er y lar ge cat e gor y of pr esumably innocent tr av eler s.” Reid, 448 U.S

. at 441. And the other two factor s—the ini ti a lly confli cting tr av el plan s and Rodr i guez’s in i ti al inattenti v eness to Patter son’s pr e sence—bec a me consi der ably less pr obati ve by the ti me Patter son called Baudino to the scene due t o Rodr i guez’s subsequent r esponses to Patter son’s di r ect questi oni n g and Mor a n ’ s e xplanati ons of the couple’s tr av el plans. See Terry, 392 U.S

. at 2 8. No cr i minal hi s to r y, ti ps, or s ur v ei llance suppor ted Patter s on’s s uspi cio n s
. C f. Sanford, 8 06 F.3d a t 956 (hi stor y of dr ug a r r ests and gang affi l iati ons s uppor ted offi

cer ’s r easonable suspi ci on); United States v. Finke, 8 5 F.3d 1275, 1282 ( 7th Ci r
. 1 996) (cr i minal hi stor y check r ev ealed two p r i or dr ug conv i c ti ons, whi ch “ s t r ongly confi r med [the poli ce offi cer ’s] ini ti al s uspi ci ons”); Brown , 188 F.3d at 8 6 3 ( FBI
sur v ei llance of vehi cle’s inv olv ement in dr ug sales suppor ted

r e a sonable s uspi ci on). Consi der ing these factor s together , a s the di str i ct c our t di d, we agr ee that the obj ecti v e facts that Patter son obser v ed fell shor t of gi ving hi m a r easonable basi s for beli ev in g that cr i minal acti v i ty was afoot. It was ther efor e
unr easonable to detai n the couple beyond the ti m e needed to complete the tr affi c stop’s mi ssi on j ust because the only o n duty K-9 uni t was ti ed up wi th another stop. Rodr i guez’s r i ght to be fr ee fr om unr easonable sei zur e s d o e s not yi eld to l aw enfor cement’s r esour ce allocati on str ains. O n e l ast wr inkle r emains. The gov er nment ar gues that Rodr i guez lacks standin g under Brendlin ev en i f the p r olonged detenti on was unl a w ful because the dr ug ev i d ence was der i v ed fr om Mor an’s consent to sear ch r athe r than Rodr i

guez’s detenti on. We do not shar e thi s v i ew. Mor an’s consentNo. 17-2334 17

to sear ch—whi ch the di str i ct cour t deemed inv oluntar y and

w h i c h t h e g o v e r n m e n t d o e s n o t c h a l l e n g e o n appeal—happened in the cour se of the pr olonged detenti on. The gov er nment a sser ts that the detenti on h ad c eased because Patter son told Mor an she was “fr ee to go and ev er ythi ng.” But in the same br eat h he continued to inter r ogate her

. Nei ther Mor a n nor Rodr i guez, who was not a p a r t y to thi s post-sni ff
conv er sati on, could hav e r easonably beli ev ed that the poli ce encounter had ter minated at thi s poi nt. The dr ug ev i dence was ther efor e der i ved fr om the unlawful sei zur e, a nd Rodr i guez, as a subj ect of that sei zur e, i s enti tled to hav e suppr essed any

ev i dence whi ch i s the fr ui t of that v i olati on. III. Thi s i s wi thout a doubt a close case. But the r ecor d r eflects that the di s tr i ct cour t closely consi der ed the ev i dence, wei ghed the cr edib i li ty of the ar r esting offi cer ’s testi mony, and consi der ed the wei ght each fac t o r me r i ted to conclude that the totali ty of the c i r cumstance s f a iled to suppor t the offi cer ’s

r easonable suspi ci on to extend the stop b eyond i ts tr affi cr elated mi s si on. Because we find no clear er r or in the di s tr i ct
cour t’s factual findings a n d other wi se agr ee wi th i ts analysi s, the deci si on below i s A F F I R M E D

.