1

PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 13-1874

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

DWAYNE THOMPSON,

a/k/a White Chocolate;

a/k/a “D”

Dwayne Thompson,

 Appellant 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

(D.C. No. 2-07-cr-00303-001)

District Judge: Honorable Joy Flowers Conti

______________

Argued June 25, 2014

______________

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, FUENTES and 

GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges.
2

(Opinion Filed: November 19, 2014)

______________

Michael L. Ivory, Esq. [ARGUED]

Rebecca R. Haywood, Esq.

David J. Hickton, Esq.

Office of the United States Attorney

700 Grant Street

Suite 4000

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Counsel for Appellee

Sarah S. Gannett, Esq. [ARGUED]

Brett G. Sweitzer, Esq.

Leigh M. Skipper, Esq.

Federal Community Defender Office

For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Suite 540 West – Curtis Center

601 Walnut Street

Philadelphia, PA 19106

Counsel for Appellant Dwayne Thompson

______________

OPINION

______________

GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge.

Dwayne Thompson (“Appellant” or “Thompson”) 

appeals the District Court’s judgment entered on March 18, 

2013. Thompson argues that the District Court erred in 
3

failing to suppress (a) the fruits of a search which, he 

contends, law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion to 

conduct, and (b) statements he made while in custody, prior 

to being presented to a magistrate judge. Thompson claims 

that such statements violated the McNabb-Mallory rule. For 

the reasons set forth below, we will affirm the District Court’s 

denial of Appellant’s motion to suppress the fruits of the 

search, but we will reverse the District Court’s suppression 

ruling regarding Thompson’s statements. Accordingly, we 

will vacate and remand Thompson’s judgment of conviction. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

From 2001 until July 2007, Dwayne Thompson was 

the supplier for a cocaine distribution network known as the 

“Cali Connect.” The Cali Connect shipped cocaine to the 

East Coast where it was distributed, including in and around

the Pittsburgh area. Thompson transported cocaine from 

California to Pittsburgh either in one of his own vehicles or in 

rentals cars. After completing his deliveries, Thompson 

would wait for the money before returning to California, or 

receive payment on his next trip to the area. 

Investigators became aware of Thompson through 

their cooperating witnesses and a wiretap investigation. 

Several cooperating witnesses named Thompson as the source 

for the Cali Connect’s cocaine. In wiretapped phone 

conversations with other targets, Thompson made comments 

that investigators interpreted to be drug-related. 
4

A. The Traffic Stop

On June 29, 2007, Thompson was involved in a traffic 

stop near Amarillo, Texas. Trooper Livermore of the Texas 

Department of Public Safety was “running traffic” on I-40 

near Amarillo, Texas, along with his partner, Chad Grange. 

Within the law enforcement community, I-40 is a “known 

corridor for narcotics, weapons, and money.” (App. 508.) 

Shortly before 1:40 p.m., Livermore saw a maroon pickup 

truck, with a hard-top cover on the bed, traveling eastbound at 

a speed of 84 mph in a 70 mph zone. It is illegal under Texas 

law to travel in excess of a posted speed limit. Livermore 

stopped the truck and approached the passenger’s side 

window. Thompson was the sole occupant of the pickup 

truck.

Livermore spoke with Thompson and advised him of 

the reason for the stop. Livermore asked Thompson where he 

was going. Thompson replied that he was en route to 

Indianapolis and that he would be staying there for 

approximately three weeks. Livermore observed that 

Thompson only had one suitcase for such a long trip, and it 

raised his suspicions. Livermore said, “I didn’t think it was 

the norm to have that size luggage for the length of the trip.” 

(App. 516.) 

Livermore also claimed that Thompson appeared 

nervous: he did not make eye contact, his voice was shaky, 

and a vein in the side of his neck was pulsing. Thompson’s 

signs of nervousness, in conjunction with the small suitcase, 

the fact that I-40 is a known drug corridor, and knowledge 

that California is a “source” state, aroused Livermore’s 

suspicions that this trip was a drug-trafficking trip. 
5

Livermore went back to the patrol car and ran 

Thompson’s criminal history. The criminal history check 

showed several dated narcotics offenses, and a more recent 

prior conviction for a firearm offense. When Livermore 

asked Thompson – still in the car – about his criminal history, 

Thompson disclosed only the firearm conviction. 

Livermore began to write up the citation for the 

speeding ticket and asked Thompson if he could search the 

vehicle. Thompson said that he could not. At this point, 

Livermore consulted with Sergeant Grange, and they decided 

to call for a K-9 detection team. 

The K-9 unit was contacted at 1:50 p.m., eleven 

minutes after the initial stop. The officers were notified at 

1:52 p.m. that the K-9 unit was en route. It took the K-9 unit 

approximately thirty minutes to arrive at the scene. Prior to 

the K-9 search, Thompson agreed to accept responsibility for 

anything that might be discovered in the truck. 

When the K-9 unit arrived at the scene, the dog alerted 

after his first pass by scratching at the back of the pickup 

truck. The officers then searched the vehicle and opened the 

locked truck-bed using a key provided by Thompson. When 

they opened it, they immediately smelled marijuana. Beneath 

a tarp lay five large, plastic tubs containing marijuana. 

Thompson was arrested and transported to the Texas 

Highway Patrol’s district office. Officers spoke with

investigators regarding the Cali Connect, who informed them 

that they should check the back tailgate area, as that is where 

Thompson had been observed to keep narcotics. The troopers 

searched the area and found six kilograms of cocaine. 

Thompson was charged locally for the marijuana found in the 
6

vehicle. He posted bond, was released, and was not informed 

about the discovery of cocaine. 

B. Failure to Timely Present 

A few weeks later, a Drug Enforcement 

Administration (“DEA”) task force executed a series of 

search warrants on residences believed to be associated with 

Cali Connect members, including Thompson, in 

Pennsylvania, Indiana, and California. The task force 

members executed a search warrant on Thompson’s home at 

7:00 a.m., on July 17, 2007. 

Thompson was found in an upstairs bedroom, on the 

phone. He was taken outside to a patrol car briefly, then 

returned inside where DEA Agent Strobel read Thompson his 

Miranda rights. No separate, written Miranda waiver was 

signed at that time, or later. Thompson sat at a table in 

handcuffs, surrounded by uniformed officers, while the search 

was conducted. During the search, the officers played 

wiretap recordings of Thompson and others involved in Cali 

Connect, obtained while investigating the group. Thompson 

remained there until the search concluded at 9:40 a.m. 

Investigators recovered two kilograms of cocaine from the 

search. 

At the conclusion of the search, agents drove 

Thompson to the DEA field office in Los Angeles (“L.A.”)

for processing. Due to the distance, traffic, and a pit-stop for 

fast food, the drive took approximately an hour and a half. 

Officers did not question Thompson during the ride, but did 

“lay[] the case out for him.” (App. 677.) Agent Strobel also 

informed Thompson about the value of cooperation.
7

They arrived at the DEA office shortly after 11:00

a.m., when Thompson was processed and placed in a holding 

room. Processing takes approximately twenty minutes, and it 

is DEA policy to process prisoners before taking them to 

court for their initial appearances. In the early afternoon, 

Agent Strobel asked Thompson “what he wanted to do[.]” 

(App. 680). Thompson informed the officer that he wanted to 

cooperate. At that time, more than six hours had passed since 

his arrest at approximately 7:00 a.m. 

At this point, Agent Strobel and another DEA Agent, 

Christopher Balchon, began interviewing Thompson. Over

the course of the afternoon, Thompson offered information 

about his cocaine sources in the L.A. area and about his coconspirators. In addition, they had Thompson place a series 

of phone calls in an effort to solicit a “reverse buy-bust” on 

one of the alleged co-conspirators. 

Agent Balchon did not present Thompson with a 

written waiver of his right to prompt presentment until 6:38 

p.m., nearly twelve hours after his arrest. Thompson was 

advised at this point about his right to a speedy appearance, 

and re-advised of his right to remain silent and his right to 

counsel. Thompson signed the form. Thompson then 

requested that the interview cease, and he was taken to 

Metropolitan Correctional Center to spend the night. 

Thompson continued to cooperate the next day, but it 

became clear that Thompson would be unable to arrange the 

“buy-bust,” and the effort was abandoned. The agents 

returned him to Metropolitan Correctional Center and 

delivered him for presentment the next morning. Thompson 

was presented nearly 48 hours after his initial arrest.
8

C. Procedural Posture

Following the denial of several motions to suppress, 

Thompson pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute 

five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §

846, and one count of conspiracy to launder monetary 

instruments, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). As part of 

the plea, Thompson preserved the right to appeal several 

adverse suppression rulings, including those at issue in this 

appeal: (1) the denial of the motion to suppress evidence 

seized in the Texas traffic stop; and (2) the denial of the 

motion to suppress statements obtained following the 

execution of search warrants at his home and various other 

locations. 

Thompson was sentenced to a term of imprisonment 

for 292 months and five years of supervised release on the 

drug conspiracy count; a term of imprisonment for 240

months and three years of supervised release on the money 

laundering count, to run concurrently; and a $200 special 

assessment. 

II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

to review the District Court’s judgment of conviction. “We 

review a district court’s order denying a motion to suppress 

under a mixed standard of review. We review findings of fact

for clear error, but we exercise plenary review over legal 

determinations.” United States v. Lewis, 672 F.3d 232, 236-

37 (3d Cir. 2012)
9

III. ANALYSIS

A. Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion to Extend the 

Traffic Stop

Thompson first contends that the troopers who were 

involved in the traffic stop lacked articulable suspicion that 

would justify the extension of their traffic stop to include a K9 search. 

“After a traffic stop that was justified at its inception, 

an officer who develops a reasonable, articulable suspicion of 

criminal activity may expand the scope of an inquiry beyond 

the reason for the stop and detain the vehicle and its 

occupants for further investigation.” United States v. Givan, 

320 F.3d 452, 458 (3d Cir. 2003). An inchoate hunch does 

not satisfy the standard of reasonable suspicion; rather, the 

Fourth Amendment requires that law enforcement have 

“some minimal level of objective justification for making the 

stop.” United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989)

(quoting INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 217 (1984)) (internal 

quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Cortez, 

449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981) (“An investigatory stop must be 

justified by some objective manifestation that the person 

stopped is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity.”). 

This level of suspicion is “less than proof of wrongdoing by a 

preponderance of the evidence [and] . . . less demanding than 

that for probable cause.” Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 7 (internal 

citations omitted). 

“In determining whether there was a basis for 

reasonable suspicion, a court must consider the totality of the 

circumstances, in light of the officer’s experience.” Givan, 

320 F.3d at 458; see also United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 
10

266, 273 (2002) (“When discussing how reviewing courts 

should make reasonable-suspicion determinations, we have 

said repeatedly that they must look at the ‘totality of the 

circumstances’ of each case to see whether the detaining 

officer has a ‘particularized and objective basis’ for 

suspecting legal wrongdoing.”) (citing Cortez, 449 U.S. at 

417-18).

The Supreme Court has stressed that the totality of the 

circumstances standard enables “officers to draw on their own 

experience and specialized training to make inferences from 

and deductions about the cumulative information available to 

them that might well elude an untrained person.” Arvizu, 534 

U.S. at 273 (quoting Cortez, 449 U.S. at 417-18) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). Further, while “the individual 

factors giving rise to reasonable suspicion may be innocent in 

isolation, together they must serve to eliminate a substantial 

portion of innocent travelers.” United States v. Mathurin, 561 

F.3d 170, 174 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Karnes v. Skrutski, 62 

F.3d 485, 493 (3d Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). Thus, courts are not permitted to analyze factors 

individually, as innocent factors taken together may appear 

suspicious to an experienced officer. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 

1, 22-23 (1968). 

The parties agree that Trooper Livermore’s initial 

justification for the stop was lawful because Thompson was 

driving 84 miles per hour in a 70 miles per hour zone.1 “A 

 

1

“A speed in excess of the limits established by 

Subsection (b) . . . is prima facie evidence that the speed is

not reasonable and prudent and that the speed is unlawful.” 

Tex. Transportation Code Ann. § 545.352 (West 2011). 
11

police officer who observes a violation of state traffic laws 

may lawfully stop the car committing the violation.” United 

States v. Bonner, 363 F.3d 213, 216 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing 

Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109 (1977)). Thus, 

the only question before us is whether Livermore had 

reasonable articulable suspicion to extend the stop to include 

a K-9 search. 

At the time of the stop, Livermore had been involved 

in approximately 1500 traffic stops both as a state trooper and 

as a member of a local police department. Ten of the stops 

involved felonious amounts of contraband and thirty 

misdemeanor arrests, all along the corridor Thompson was 

stopped on. Livermore was trained to recognize indicators of 

drug smuggling and other criminal activities at the training 

academy and on the job. 

Livermore testified that Thompson’s explanation about 

the length of his trip and the amount of luggage was 

suspicious. Livermore noted that the amount of luggage 

appeared to be inconsistent with the stated length of the trip. 

Livermore also observed Thompson’s behavior and physical 

characteristics as additional indicators of suspicious activity. 

Thompson was visibly nervous, with a shaky voice and a vein 

on his neck pulsating rapidly. His answers to questions came 

out hesitatingly, and he neglected to mention his prior 

involvement with controlled substances or narcotics when 

questioned by Livermore. 

Based upon Livermore’s testimony and experience, the 

District Court concluded that he possessed a “reasonable 

articulable suspicion in terms of articulating his basis for 

those suspicions.” (App. 618.) The Court determined that, 

based on the “totality of the circumstances, viewing the 
12

officer’s experience and training, that the investigatory stop 

was appropriate and under the Fourth Amendment was more 

than an inchoate hunch.” (Id. at 619.) 

Thompson, in arguing that the District Court erred in 

finding that Livermore had reasonable articulable suspicion, 

relies upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Reid v. Georgia, 

448 U.S. 438 (1980). In Reid, a DEA agent observed Reid 

looking back in the direction of a second man, who possessed 

a matching shoulder bag. The agent stated that when he 

approached them, both men appeared to be nervous. The 

Court found that the evidence relied on in this case would 

“describe a very large category of presumably innocent 

travelers, who would be subject to virtually random seizures 

were the Court to conclude that as little foundation as there 

was in this case could justify a seizure.” Reid, 448 U.S. at 

441. The Supreme Court further held that the agent’s 

suspicion that “[Reid] and his companion were attempting to 

conceal the fact that they were traveling together . . . was 

more an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch, 

than a fair inference in the light of his experience, [and was] 

simply too slender a reed to support the seizure in this case.” 

Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Unlike in Reid, Thompson’s behavior, when examined 

in totality, serves to “eliminate a substantial portion of 

innocent travelers.” Mathurin, 561 F.3d at 174 (quoting 

Karnes, 62 F.3d at 493) (internal quotation marks omitted).

During Livermore’s stop of Thompson, there were many 

factors that piqued the officer’s suspicion, not simply 

nervousness and glances. Accordingly, it was reasonable for 

Livermore to infer, based upon his experience as a state 

trooper and as a member of the local police, that Thompson 

was engaged in illegal activity. 
13

In reviewing the totality of the circumstances, we 

agree with the District Court that Livermore had a 

“reasonable, articulable suspicion” to believe that Thompson 

was engaged in an illegal activity, and to extend Thompson’s 

traffic stop to include a K-9 search. We will affirm the 

District Court’s denial of Thompson’s motion to suppress 

relating to the traffic stop on June 29, 2007.

B. The McNabb-Mallory Rule

Thompson next argues that certain statements he made 

on July 17, 2007 – specifically, his confession – should be 

suppressed on the basis that his interrogation violated his 

right to prompt presentment. 

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require that a 

defendant who has been arrested within the United States be 

brought “without unnecessary delay before a magistrate 

judge.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(a)(1)(A). In a series of cases, the 

Supreme Court gave teeth to this rule by requiring the 

exclusion of any confessions obtained during an unreasonable

period of detention that violated the prompt presentment 

requirement. See McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 

(1943); Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957); see 

also Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303, 322 (2009)

(confirming that even voluntary confessions should be 

suppressed if they occurred during a period of unreasonable 

delay). The right to speedy presentment not only checks the 

likelihood of coercive questioning, but also avoids “all the 

evil implications of secret interrogation of persons accused of 

crime.” Corley, 556 U.S. at 307 (quoting McNabb, 318 U.S.

at 344). Presentment is the “point at which the judge is 

required to take several key steps to foreclose Government 

overreaching: informing the defendant of the charges against 
14

him, his right to remain silent, his right to counsel, the 

availability of bail, and any right to a preliminary hearing; 

giving the defendant a chance to consult with counsel; and 

deciding between detention or release.” Corley, 556 U.S. at 

320. 

Following the Supreme Court’s articulation of the 

McNabb-Mallory exclusionary rule, Congress enacted 18 

U.S.C. § 3501 in order to create a safe harbor period for 

certain voluntary confessions. See Corley, 556 U.S. at 309-10

(discussing legislative history and intent of § 3501). With 

respect to Rule 5(a)’s requirement of speedy presentment, § 

3501(c) provides that “a confession . . . shall not be 

inadmissible solely because of delay in bringing such person 

before a magistrate judge . . . if such confession was made or 

given by such person within six hours immediately following 

his arrest or other detention.” 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c). The 

section further provides that its six-hour cut-off “shall not 

apply in any case in which the delay in bringing such person 

before such magistrate judge . . . is found by the trial judge to 

be reasonable considering the means of transportation and the 

distance to be traveled to the nearest available such magistrate 

judge.” Id. 

The reasonableness standard under the McNabbMallory rule focuses primarily on whether the delay was for 

the purpose of interrogation. See Corley, 556 U.S. at 308 

(“[D]elay for the purpose of interrogation is the epitome of 

unnecessary delay.”) (quoting Mallory, 354 U.S. at 455-56) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). Simply put, a delay in 

presentment of a defendant before a magistrate judge is 

unreasonable and unnecessary when it is “of a nature to give 

opportunity for the extraction of a confession.” Mallory, 354 

U.S. at 455. 
15

In order to determine whether a McNabb-Mallory 

violation occurred, we must first determine whether voluntary 

statements were received either within six hours of a 

defendant’s detention, or within a longer period deemed 

reasonable in light of travel or transportation difficulties. If 

they were, the statements occurred within the safe-harbor 

period, and no exclusion is required. Corley, 556 U.S. at 322 

(“If the confession came within that period, it is admissible . . 

. .”). 

Next, where a voluntary confession falls beyond the 

safe-harbor period, § 3501(c) then requires a court to 

determine whether the delay was nevertheless reasonable or 

necessary under the McNabb-Mallory rule. See id. (“If the 

confession occurred before presentment and beyond six 

hours, however, the court must decide whether delaying that 

long was unreasonable or unnecessary under the McNabbMallory cases, and if it was, the confession is to be 

suppressed.”); United States v. McDowell, 687 F.3d 904, 909 

(7th Cir. 2012) (“A confession given outside the six-hour 

period is also admissible under § 3501(c) if the court finds the 

confession was voluntary and the delay in presentment was 

reasonable.”) (emphasis in original). 

A delay may be reasonable if caused by administrative 

concerns, such as the unavailability of a magistrate following 

an arrest, see, e.g., United States v. Garcia-Hernandez, 569 

F.3d 1100, 1106 (9th Cir. 2009), or by a shortage of 

personnel, id.; United States v. Boche-Perez, 755 F.3d 327, 

336-38 (5th Cir. 2014). In addition, de minimis delays past 

the six-hour limitation may not necessarily raise procedural 

concerns. See United States v. Jacques, 744 F.3d 804, 814-15

(1st Cir. 2014) (one minute outside the six-hour limit found to 

be a minor and ultimately harmless miscalculation of time). 
16

A delay “is unreasonable and unnecessary when it is 

‘of a nature to give opportunity for the extraction of a 

confession.’” Garcia-Hernandez, 569 F.3d at 1106 (quoting 

Mallory, 354 U.S. at 455). A delay caused by law 

enforcement’s “desire to investigate other crimes is not a 

legitimate excuse for their failure to respect . . . [the] right to 

a prompt arraignment.” United States v. Perez, 733 F.2d 

1026, 1035-36 (2d Cir. 1984); see also id. (government failed 

to provide any evidence for why delay was necessary, when a 

magistrate judge was available nearby after the defendant had 

been processed and there were six agents assigned to the 

case). Additionally, a delay is unreasonable where the record 

clearly shows that agents “continued with their interrogation, 

despite Miranda and Rule 5, fully aware of the sanction of 

exclusion yet willing to incur it, ostensibly in the name of a 

greater good.” United States v. Helmandollar, 852 F.2d 498, 

501 (9th Cir. 1988); see also id. (defendant held for more than 

28 hours before presentment and questioned by multiple 

agents continuously, despite seeking to assert right to counsel 

on numerous occasions). Moreover, unexplained delays,

despite being in close proximity to an available judge, can be 

considered unreasonable. United States v. Wilson, 838 F.2d 

1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 1988) (no reasonable excuse for no 

arraignment because the arraignments were held within the 

same building where Wilson was held). 

Here, it is undisputed that Thompson’s confession 

came considerably after the six-hour period had run. As a 

result, the question before us is whether the delay in his 

presentment was unreasonable or unnecessary under the 

McNabb-Mallory cases. 

Thompson contends that, because his waiver was 

untimely under § 3501(c), his subsequent confession is 
17

inadmissible under McNabb-Mallory. Specifically, 

Thompson insists that the delay cannot be deemed 

“reasonable” because it was unnecessary, as Thompson was 

arrested in relative proximity to the federal courthouse and 

before the business day had commenced. Agents had the 

opportunity to bring him before the court for at least one and 

possibly two arraignment dockets or seek a waiver of 

presentment, but simply chose not to do so, in order to pursue 

his cooperation. (Appellant’s Br. 37).

On the other hand, the government contends that the 

delay in Thompson’s presentment was reasonable because the 

delay was not for the purpose of interrogation. In addition to 

the delays caused by: (1) the search of Thompson’s residence; 

(2) the time spent in transporting Thompson to the DEA 

office and providing him with food; (3) processing Thompson 

at the DEA office; and (4) the missed opportunity to bring 

Thompson to the morning docket the day of his arrest, the 

government asks this Court to find that pursuit of cooperation 

is a reasonable delay. The government contends that pursuit 

of cooperation is particularly distinguishable from pursuit of 

confession in this case because “Thompson’s confession was 

superfluous to [the] issue of his guilt.” (Appellee’s Br. 38). 

We find that the government’s arguments do not hold 

water. Thompson signed a waiver of his right to prompt 

presentment approximately 12 hours after his arrest. He was 

ultimately presented 48 hours after his arrest. The traditional 

exceptions to the McNabb-Mallory rule focus on the practical 

obstacles to getting to a magistrate. See, e.g., GarciaHernandez, 569 F.3d at 1106 (administrative delays are 

reasonable and necessary). Certainly, some of the obstacles 

to the delay were logistical. “[L]aw enforcement personnel 

are permitted, within reasonable limits, to investigate whether 
18

the crime occurred; search and secure a premises; and secure, 

confiscate, or destroy contraband before taking an arrestee to 

a magistrate.” Boche-Perez, 755 F.3d at 337. 

Here, two and a half hours were spent searching and 

securing the premises, as well as confiscating contraband 

before Thompson was taken to a magistrate. Thus, this part 

of the delay is reasonable. In addition, law enforcement 

testified that part of the delay was due to transportation. The 

rule itself makes clear that transportation-based delays are 

reasonable. 18 U.S.C. §3501(c). The government also claims

that by the time Thompson arrived to the DEA offices, the 

morning arraignment docket was unavailable to them. 

Accepting this as true, this delay would be considered 

reasonable as well. A magistrate can be considered 

unavailable due to a host of reasons, including a full docket. 

See Boche-Perez, 755 F.3d at 338. 

However, while some of the obstacles to the delay 

were reasonable, as the government notes, “[t]he 

overwhelming bulk of the delay in this case was devoted to 

giving Thompson the opportunity to cooperate and was 

therefore reasonable.” (Appellee’s Br. 42.) We are unwilling 

to hold that “pursuit of cooperation” may constitute a basis 

for delay in presentment. Drawing a line between pursuit of 

cooperation and the extraction of a confession is untenable 

without looking at the subjective intent of the officers. It is 

almost inevitable that the pursuit of cooperation will lead to a 

confession by way of interrogation. “Few criminals feel 

impelled to confess to the police purely of their own accord, 

without any questioning at all.” Miller v. Fenton, 796 F.2d 

598, 604 (3d Cir. 1986). As a supervising court, it is nearly 

impossible to separate the pursuit of cooperation from the 

most unreasonable excuse: interrogation. 
19

Thus, we must hold that pursuit of cooperation is not a 

reasonable excuse for delay in presentment. Were we to hold 

otherwise, the resulting imprecision would lead to confusion 

on where to draw the line between engagement based on a 

mutual desire to cooperate, versus law enforcement’s desire 

to interrogate, with the hope that cooperation may result. 

Additionally, we would be required to make a credibility 

determination regarding whether law enforcement was 

legitimately representing that their pursuit of cooperation was 

done in earnest. Such an outcome would undermine Corley’s 

affirmation of the McNabb-Mallory rule, by making the 

inquiry turn on the subjective intent of the officers rather than 

the objectively verifiable and logistical causes of delay 

permissible under 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c). See Corley, 556 U.S. 

at 322 (“We hold that § 3501 modified McNabb-Mallory 

without supplanting it.”). 

In addition to not finding pursuit of cooperation as a 

reasonable excuse to delay, the logistical components of 

Thompson’s delay account for only a portion of the time 

before he agreed to cooperate fifteen to thirty minutes after 

the six-hour time period elapsed, or before he was presented 

with a waiver at 12 hours, or presented to a magistrate judge 

nearly 48 hours after being arrested. The government 

presented no evidence as to the unavailability of the afternoon 

docket, nor why Thompson had to be processed at the DEA 

prior to presentment. Further, the government did not explain 

why Thompson was not presented with a waiver within the 

six hour constraint, which would have permitted the 

government to pursue Thompson’s cooperation. Our opinion 

does not impede law enforcement’s legitimate desire and 

effort to seek out cooperation. 
20

The purpose of the McNabb-Mallory rule is not merely 

to “avoid all the evil implications of secret interrogation of 

persons accused of crime.” McNabb, 318 U.S. at 344. 

Rather, the rule was also designed to ensure that a defendant 

is brought “before a judicial officer as quickly as possible so 

that he may be advised of his rights.” Mallory, 354 U.S. at 

454. The government was required to present Thompson to a 

magistrate as quickly as possible. Instead, the government 

delayed Thompson’s arraignment so that they could continue 

to persuade him to cooperate. The longer a defendant goes 

without being apprised of his rights, the more vulnerable he 

is. “In a world without McNabb-Mallory, federal agents 

would be free to question suspects for extended periods 

before bringing them out in the open, and we have always 

known what custodial secrecy leads to . . . [C]ustodial police 

interrogation, by its very nature, isolates and pressures the 

individual, . . . and there is mounting empirical evidence that 

these pressures can induce a frighteningly high percentage of 

people to confess to crimes they never committed . . . .” 

Corley, 556 U.S. at 320-21 (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted). Because we are unpersuaded by the 

government’s argument that the delay in presentment was 

reasonable, we will reverse the District Court’s denial of 

Thompson’s motion to suppress his statements. 

VI. CONCLUSION

We will affirm the District Court’s ruling denying the 

motion to suppress the evidence found as a result of the traffic 

stop on June 29, 2007. We will reverse the District Court’s 

ruling denying the motion to suppress the statements made in 

violation of the McNabb-Mallory rule and Fed. R. Crim. P. 

5(a)(1)(A) from July 17, 2007. In this case, the delay of 

presentment was not reasonable, and accordingly,
21

Thompson’s statements should have been suppressed. We 

therefore vacate the judgment of conviction and remand the 

case to the District Court for proceedings consistent with this 

opinion.