N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. M ATTHEW

DESM OND B R OW

NE, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-30042

D.C . No. 9:16-c r-00027-DLC -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Dana L . C hriste nse n, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 7, 2018 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : R

AW LINSON, C LIFTON, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc u it Judge s. De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt M atthe w B rowne a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing his m otion to suppre ss e vide n c e disc ove re d during a wa rrantle ss se arc h of his ve hic l e . W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED

APR 05 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.A distric t c o urt’ s de nia l of a m otion to suppre ss is re v ie we d denov o . Unite d State s v . Gorman , 859 F.3d 706, 714 (9th C ir. 2017). “ W e re vie w denov o whe the r the p olic e ha d re a sona

ble suspic ion to m ake an inve stiga tory stop, a

m ixe d que stion of la

w a nd fa c t.” Unite d State

s v . C houdhry , 461 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th C ir. 2006). The distric t c ourt’ s unde rly ing fa c tua l findings a re re vie w e d for c le ar
e rror. Id. W e m ay

a ffirm on a

ny ba s is supporte d by

the re c ord. Id. 1. Holz e r ha d re a s ona

ble suspic ion to c onduc t a tra ffic stop be c a

use he witne s se d B rowne spe e ding. Se e id. (“ A tra ffic viola tion a lone is suffic ie nt to
e sta blish re a sona

ble suspic ion.” ). 2. Sc ofie ld wa s justifie d

in prolonging the

tra ffic stop be c a

use he ha d
re a s ona ble suspic ion tha

t B rowne wa s tra ffic king na rc otic s. The anony

m ous tip that form e d the ba sis of Sc ofie ld’ s re a sona ble suspic ion e xhibite d “ suffic i e nt indic ia of re l ia bility .” Alabama v . W

hite , 496 U.S. 325, 332 (1990). Sc ofie ld a nd Holz e r we re a

ble t o c orroborate m any of the de ta ils of the anony m ous tip. The offic e rs c orroborate d the m ake , m ode l, c olor, a nd c ountry

of re g istra

tion of the
ve hic le de sc ribe d in the tip. W e find e spe c i a lly c om pe lling thea dditiona l
c orroboration of thenam e of the drive r. “ It is true that not e ve ry de ta il m e ntione d by the tipste r wa s ve rifie d.” Id. at 331. Howe ve r, we c onc lude unde r the tota lity

2of the c irc um sta n c e s tha t the anony

m ous tip e xhibite d suffic ie nt indic ia of
re lia bility to justify Sc ofie ld’ s prolonga

t ion of the tra ffic stop. 1 Furthe r, by

c a lling m u l tiple K-9 units shortly

a fte r spe aking with B rowne , Sc ofie ld “ dilige ntly

pursue d a

m e ans of inve stiga

tion tha t wa s like ly

to c onfirm

or dispe l [his] suspic ions quic kly , during whic h tim e it wa s ne c e ssa ry to de ta i n [B rowne ] .” Unite d State

s v . Sharpe , 470 U.S. 675, 686 (1985). Although it took be twe e n forty -five m i nute s a n d an hour for the K-9 unit to a rrive , this de l ay

did not

“ unre a sona

bly infringe [] inte re sts prote c te d by the C onstitution.” Illinois v

. C aballe s , 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005); se e also Galle gos v . C ity of L.A. , 308 F.3d 987, 992–93 (9th C ir. 2002) (forty -five to sixty m inute de te ntion not
unre a s ona

ble ). 3. B rowne ’ s re lia

nc e on Unite d State

s v . Magallon-Lope

z , 817 F.3d 671 (9th C ir. 2016), is m

ispla c e d. B rowne wa s in fa c t told the true ba s is for why he
wa s stoppe d a

nd why the stop wa s prolonge d, so we ne e d not a ddre s s his c la im of

1 W e note tha

t the re we re disc re pa

nc ie s be twe e n De te c t ive Sc ofie ld’ s te stim ony and the body c am an d

a udio re c ordings of thetra ffic stop. Those disc re pa nc ie s do not a lte r our de te rm ination tha t othe r c orroboration provide d obje c tive ly

re a sona b l e suspic i on to prolong the tra ffic stop, but we are none the le ss c onc e rne d tha

t the re c ord doe s not support m any of the de ta ils inc lude d in the de te c tive ’ s te stim o ny . 3a

due proc e ss right “ to be inform e d of the true ba sis for a stop or a rre st.” Magallon-Lope

z , 817 F.3d a

t 677 (B e rz o n, J., c onc urring). AFFIRM E D.

4