United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-30213

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Eric J. Richard, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:18-CR-355-1

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Eric J. Richard entered a conditional guilty plea to possessing cocaine 

with the intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), reserving 

the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the 

evidence seized during a traffic stop. He was sentenced to 71 months of 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 2, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-30213 Document: 00516222260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2022
No. 21-30213

2

imprisonment and five years of supervised release. He now contendsthat the 

traffic stop was not justified at its inception because it was not supported by 

reasonable suspicion and that, even if the initial stop was justified, his 

detention was unreasonably prolonged.

On appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we review 

the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law 

de novo. United States v. Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d 420, 429 (5th Cir. 2005). 

The constitutionality of a traffic stop is examined under the two-pronged 

analysis described in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). E.g., United States v. 

Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 506 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). We first evaluate 

whether the stop was justified at its inception and then consider “whether 

the officer’s subsequent actions were reasonably related in scope to the 

circumstances that justified the stop.” Id.

“For a traffic stop to be justified at its inception, an officer must have 

an objectively reasonable suspicion that some sort of illegal activity, such as 

a traffic violation, occurred, or is about to occur, before stopping the 

vehicle.” Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d at 430. We have held “that reasonable 

suspicion exists when the officer can point to specific and articulable facts 

which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably 

warrant the search and seizure.” Id. In this case, the Louisiana state trooper 

who stopped Richard testified that he observed a truck traveling on the 

interstate at approximately seventy miles per hour, followed closely by 

Richard’s vehicle, which was traveling at the same speed. The trooper 

testified that, based on his training and experience, Richard’s vehicle, which 

was within two car lengths of the truck, was traveling at an unsafe distance. 

This prompted the trooper to pursue Richard and pull him over. 

Though the trooper’s dashboard camera was not activated in time to 

capture the traffic violation, his testimony, when viewed in the light most 

Case: 21-30213 Document: 00516222260 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2022
No. 21-30213

3

favorable to the Government, was sufficient to establish that he had “an 

objectively reasonable suspicion that some sort of illegal activity, such as a 

traffic violation, occurred[.]” Id.; see La. Stat. Ann. § 32:81(A)

(prohibiting a motorist from following “another vehicle more closely than is 

reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and 

the traffic upon and the condition of the highway”). Accordingly, we 

conclude that the traffic stop was justified at its inception. 

Under the second prong of Terry, the “detention must be temporary 

and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop.” 

Brigham, 382 F.3d at 507. However, “if additional reasonable suspicion 

arises in the course of the stop and before the initial purpose of the stop has 

been fulfilled, then the detention may continue until the new reasonable 

suspicion has been dispelled or confirmed.” Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d at 431.

Richard’s attempt physically to distance himself from his vehicle, his clammy 

handshake, his untruthful and inconsistent responses regarding his itinerary

and employment, and his use of an unregistered vehicle on a known drug 

trafficking corridor, when combined with the reasonable inferences drawn by 

the trooper based on his training and experience, were sufficient to arouse 

reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. See id. at 433. The trooper was 

permitted to ask questions unrelated to the traffic violation until that

suspicion could be dispelled or confirmed, and he did so within seven to eight

minutes after stopping Richard’s vehicle. See id. at 431. Under these 

circumstances, Richard’s detention was not unreasonably prolonged. 

We agree with the district court that the traffic stop did not run afoul 

of the Fourth Amendment. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-30213 Document: 00516222260 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/02/2022