[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-13678

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:17-cr-00028-RWS-JCF-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DEONTAE C. THOMAS, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(July 7, 2020)

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 19-13678 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 1 of 10
2

Deontae Thomas appeals his convictions for possession of heroin with intent 

to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and (b)(1)(C), possession of 

methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and 

(b)(1)(B)(viii), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking 

crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). On appeal, Thomas argues that 

the district court should have suppressed evidence from the traffic stop that led to 

the discovery of the drugs and the firearm because it was unconstitutionally 

prolonged. After careful review, we affirm.

I.

On December 2, 2016, Brandon Holcomb, a deputy with the Habersham 

County Sheriff’s Office, observed a vehicle speeding, failing to maintain its lane, 

and changing lanes without signaling. Suspecting that the driver was under the 

influence of alcohol or drugs, he initiated a traffic stop. 

When the vehicle stopped, the deputy approached the driver, Deontae 

Thomas. The deputy asked for Thomas’s driver’s license, explained the reason for 

the stop, and began assessing the driver for signs of impairment. He did not smell 

alcohol or marijuana. As a part of this assessment, the deputy asked Thomas 

where he was headed. Thomas gave a series of confusing answers. He initially

said that he was going to Gainesville even though he was 25 miles north of 

Gainesville and traveling north. He also said that he was staying in Gainesville 

Case: 19-13678 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 2 of 10
3

and traveling to Wal-Mart but could not provide a reasonable explanation for why 

he would travel to another city instead of going to a Wal-Mart in Gainesville. In 

addition to being nonsensical, both destinations were inconsistent with a cellphone 

GPS app visible on the dashboard indicating that the destination was 52 miles 

away, due north. When asked about the GPS, Thomas claimed that the phone was 

not his, but belonged to his female passenger. During this conversation, the deputy 

noticed that Thomas was avoiding eye contact and was getting frustrated with the 

questions. The evasive answers led Deputy Holcomb to suspect that Thomas 

might be involved in the illegal transportation of narcotics. 

Deputy Holcomb asked Thomas to exit the vehicle. Thomas refused 

multiple times before the deputy told him that he did not have a choice. After 

exiting the vehicle, the deputy asked if Thomas was carrying any weapons and

received permission to search Thomas’s person. The deputy found a roll of $500 

in cash in Thomas’s pocket and thought that carrying so much money was unusual. 

Following the pat-down, the deputy asked Thomas to walk to the front of the 

patrol car. He did this because he wanted to administer the field sobriety tests in 

view of the camera, which was in the front windshield of the police car. Thomas 

did not comply. After telling him numerous times to walk to the front of the patrol 

car, the deputy drew his taser in order to maintain control of the situation. At this 

point Thomas complied, and the deputy reholstered his taser once Thomas was in 

Case: 19-13678 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 3 of 10
4

front of the patrol car. Thomas and the deputy then spoke for a few minutes about 

Thomas’s failure to comply with instructions and about the inconsistent travel 

plans. The deputy asked Thomas if he had illegal narcotics in the vehicle. Thomas 

said that he did not, but refused to give the deputy consent to search his vehicle. 

Just as Deputy Holcomb began to administer the first field sobriety exercise, 

a second officer walked up and began speaking with Thomas. Deputy Holcomb

took this opportunity to walk over and speak with the female passenger to compare 

her account of their travel plans and to ask about Thomas’s impairment—a 

common police practice when investigating potentially impaired drivers. He

believed that her story was inconsistent with Thomas’s and with the GPS display. 

While walking back from questioning the passenger, the deputy noticed a wrapped, 

square, cellophane bundle concealed beneath a jacket in the backseat of the 

vehicle. Because of his training, he immediately suspected the bundle of being 

illegal narcotics. 

Following this observation, which occurred approximately fourteen minutes 

into the stop, the deputy believed he had probable cause to search the vehicle. He 

placed Thomas in handcuffs and called a state magistrate judge to secure a search 

warrant for the car. The magistrate judge told Deputy Holcomb that he would have 

to tow the vehicle, detain the occupants, and come meet her in person to get the 

Case: 19-13678 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 4 of 10
5

warrant. The deputy told her that he needed to finish his field sobriety evaluations

and that he would call the judge back if needed. 

Following the phone call, Deputy Holcomb read Thomas his Miranda rights 

and removed the handcuffs. Thomas consented to the field sobriety evaluations

and then the deputy performed a series of tests. On the basis of Thomas’s 

performance, as well as the reddening of his conjunctiva and other observations, 

Deputy Holcomb arrested Thomas for driving under the influence of alcohol or 

drugs. 

Following the arrest, Deputy Holcomb and other officers searched the 

vehicle and found three large packages of narcotics (two of methamphetamine and 

one of heroin), a pill in Thomas’s wallet, additional methamphetamine in the 

passenger’s purse, and a loaded firearm in between a front seat and the center 

console. 

Thomas was indicted on charges of possessing heroin with intent to 

distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and (b)(1)(C), possessing

methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and 

(b)(1)(B)(viii), and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Before trial, Thomas filed a motion to 

suppress the evidence seized from his vehicle. The motion was denied, he was 

Case: 19-13678 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 5 of 10
6

convicted by a jury on all counts, and he was sentenced to a total term of 144 

months imprisonment. Thomas filed a timely notice of appeal.

II.

We apply a mixed standard of review in analyzing a district court’s denial of 

a defendant’s motion to suppress, reviewing findings of fact for clear error and the 

district court’s application of the law to those facts de novo. United States v. 

Ramirez, 476 F.3d 1231, 1235–36 (11th Cir. 2007). “Absent clear error, we are

bound by the district court’s findings of fact and credibility choices.” United 

States v. Hawkins, 934 F.3d 1251, 1259 (11th Cir. 2019). 

III.

Thomas’s only argument on appeal is that the district court erred by denying 

his motion to suppress. In his view, Deputy Holcomb prolonged the traffic stop 

such that it violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment. 

A traffic stop may be justified by reasonable, articulable suspicion that the 

individual has committed a traffic violation. See Rodriguez v. United States, 575 

U.S. 348, 354 (2015). The “tolerable duration” of such a seizure is limited to the 

time it takes “to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop,” and the 

authority for the seizure “ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or 

reasonably should have been—completed.” Id. A “stop is unlawfully prolonged 

when an officer, without reasonable suspicion, diverts from the stop’s purpose and 

Case: 19-13678 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 6 of 10
7

adds time to the stop in order to investigate other crimes.” United States v. 

Campbell, 912 F.3d 1340, 1353 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 196 (2019), 

reh’g denied, 140 S. Ct. 633 (2019).

Certain ordinary inquiries and actions that are incidental to the traffic stop 

are allowed. These include “checking the driver’s license, determining whether 

there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s 

registration and proof of insurance.” Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 355. We have also 

held that, generally speaking, “questions about travel plans are ordinary inquiries 

incident to a traffic stop.” Campbell, 912 F.3d at 1354. In addition, police officers

conducting a lawful traffic stop may take steps that are “reasonably necessary to 

protect their personal safety” and may order the driver to get out of the car “as a 

matter of course.” United States v. Gibbs, 917 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir. 2019) 

(quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Beyond these incidental inquiries, an officer may prolong a stop to inquire

into unrelated matters only if he develops reasonable suspicion that another crime 

has been committed. Campbell, 912 F.3d at 1353. When determining whether 

reasonable suspicion exists, we review the totality of the circumstances to ascertain 

whether the detaining officer had a “particularized and objective basis” for 

suspecting legal wrongdoing. United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002). 

In so doing, we give due weight to the officer’s experience. United States v. 

Case: 19-13678 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 7 of 10
8

Briggman, 931 F.2d 705, 709 (11th Cir. 1991). Factors that may contribute to the 

formation of reasonable suspicion include a suspect’s nervous and evasive 

behavior, inconsistent answers regarding travel plans, and refusal to comply with 

an officer’s lawful orders. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124–25 (2000); 

United States v. Boyce, 351 F.3d 1102, 1109 (11th Cir. 2003), United States v. 

Bishop, 940 F.3d 1242, 1249 (11th Cir. 2019). Additionally, a police officer has 

probable cause to search a vehicle when he sees contraband in the vehicle in plain 

view. United States v. Spoerke, 568 F.3d 1236, 1249 (11th Cir. 2009).

Here, we find no constitutional violation. Thomas does not challenge the 

validity of the initial stop; he concedes that Deputy Holcomb had reasonable 

suspicion to stop his vehicle and to investigate whether Thomas was driving under 

the influence. His only argument is that the deputy unnecessarily prolonged the 

stop by inquiring into matters that were unrelated to the traffic violations. We are 

not persuaded.

Deputy Holcomb’s initial conduct upon approaching the vehicle was related 

to the purpose of the stop and to his personal safety. His questions about where 

Thomas was headed were related to the traffic violation because travel plans are 

generally appropriate subjects of inquiry incident to a traffic stop. Campbell, 912 

F.3d at 1354. This logic applies with even more force in the context of a DUI 

investigation, where a driver’s confusion or disorientation could be indicative of 

Case: 19-13678 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 8 of 10
9

impairment. Likewise, Deputy Holcomb’s request for Thomas to exit the 

vehicle—allowable as a matter of course in any event—was also related to the 

purpose of the stop and the need to conduct field sobriety evaluations. Finally, 

Deputy Holcomb’s request to search Thomas for weapons before conducting the 

sobriety evaluations was related to officer safety.

In the course of this conduct—all of which was related to a DUI 

investigation—Deputy Holcomb was able to observe things that justified 

reasonable suspicion that some additional wrongdoing might have been afoot. 

Thomas provided inconsistent and evasive answers to simple questions about his 

travel plans—answers that were inconsistent with the data visible on the GPS 

display. Additionally, Thomas was reluctant to exit the vehicle, acted nervously 

throughout the stop, had bloodshot eyes, was carrying $500 in cash on his person, 

and was reluctant to comply with the deputy’s instructions. The totality of these 

circumstances justified Deputy Holcomb’s subsequent questions to Thomas about 

the presence of drugs in the car and brief questioning of the passenger. 

The additional questioning, coupled with the remainder of the DUI 

investigation, unearthed additional information that further contributed to the 

Deputy’s reasonable suspicion. The plainly visible bundle of suspected narcotics, 

the passenger’s inconsistent explanation about the reason for their trip, and 

Thomas’s performance on the field sobriety evaluations all amounted to at least a

Case: 19-13678 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 9 of 10
10

“particularized and objective basis” to believe that illegal drugs might have been in 

the vehicle. Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273.

In sum, the district court did not err in denying Thomas’s motion to 

suppress. The totality of the circumstances supports Deputy Holcomb’s reasonable 

suspicion that Thomas was involved in criminal activity. Thus, even if the traffic 

stop was prolonged beyond the time needed to accomplish its original purpose of 

conducting a DUI investigation, such detention was not unconstitutional. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-13678 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 10 of 10