FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT AUG 21, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 07- 1245 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 06-00032 -CR- 001-CAR- 3 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ANTHONIAL IRIC K, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Ge orgia

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(A ug us t 21, 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, MA RC U S an d W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: A nth oni al I ri ck

appe al s hi s c onvi ct ion s f or pos se ssi on w ithint en t t o dis tr ibu te ove r fi ve kil ogr am s of c oc ai ne , 21 U
. S. C. § 84 1( a) (1 ), and p oss es sio n ofIn addition, we construe all fac ts in the light most favora ble to the pre vailing pa

rty . I d. 1 2 a fi re ar m dur ing adr

ug tra ff ic kin g c ri m e, 18 U
. S. C. § 92 4( c) (1 ). N o r ev er sib le
erro r ha s b een sh own ; we af fir m . Ir ic k f ir st arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in de ny ing his m oti on t o s up p re s s th e d ru g s an dg u n fo u n di n h i s tru ck ; h e c o n t en d s th at th e o ff i ce r’s continu ed detention o f him after the conclusio n of a valid traff ic stop was
unsu ppor te d by r ea sona ble sus pic ion
. I n c onsi de ri ng the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of
a m oti on t o su

ppr es s, w e re vie wde te rm inatio ns o f fa ct f or c le ar e rr or and the ap pli catio n of

lawto the f

ac ts d e novo . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Bo y ce , 351 F . 3d 1 102, 1105 (11th Cir. 2003). 1 A n of fi ce r m ay e xte nd the dur at ionof

atr af fi c sto p to inv es tig at e sus pic iou s ci rc um stanc es that c om e to h is atte nti on i f the of fi ce r’ s su spi ci on i s r ea sona ble and the e xte nde d se iz ur e is b ri ef
. U nit ed S ta te s v. H ar

ri s, 928 F . 2d 1 113, 111 7 ( 11th Ci r. 199 1)
. R ea sona

ble sus pic ionis m ea sur ed und er the tot al ity

of the circum stances and in the ligh t of the detaining o ffice r’ s knowledge. U nited States v. Tap ia , 91 2 F .2d13 67 , 13 70 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). He re, Of ficer Jeff Bray testified that he initiallystopp ed Irick, who w as tr av el ing e as t onI nte rs ta te 20, aro und 2 p. m . f or sw er vin g in to the e m er ge nc y

lane an d be ca use his ta g nu m

be r w as obs cure d by

ati nte d c ove r. I ri ck

tol d B ray

that he3

wa s driving hom e to South Carolina after being in Atlanta for the w eekend, he had be endr ivi ng s inc e lun ch tim e, and tha t he sw er ve d in to the e m er ge nc y

lane be ca use he w as e at ing
. B ray

sawf as t f ood co nta ine rs , inc lud ing som e fo r breakfast f

ood, on the cons ole, which disp elled Bray ’ s concerns that Irick w as im pa ire d. Bu t O ff ic er Br ay be cam e sus pic iou s of

I ri ck - - an d c ont inu ed

the de te nti on -

- f o r th e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s : ( 1 ) I r i c kw a s o n l y a n h o u r o u t s i d e o f

A t l a n t aa t2 p . m. but the br eakf

as t c ont ai ne rs in Ir ic k’ s tr uc k w er e fo r ite m s no t so ld p as t 10 :30 or 11 a
. m . , and i n B ray ’ s e xpe ri en ce , dr ug transpo rt er s st oppe d on ly to eat; (2 ) tho ugh Ir ic k sa id h e stay ed in A tlanta

f or the w ee ke nd, Br ay

did not se e lug ga ge in t h e tr u c k ; ( 3 ) I
- 2 0 wa s amaj o r dr u g tr a f f i c k i n g c o rr i d o r

i n Ge o r g i a ; an d( 4 ) B r a y, a tr ai ne d param ed ic , sawI ri ck ’ s c ar oti d art er y thr obbi ng and n oti ce d th at I ri ck did
n o tw a n tt o ma k e e ye c o n t a c tw i t h h i m. B r a y r a n I r i c k ’s l i c e n s e - - w h i c h c a me ba ck va lid - - an d qu es tio ne d hi m

m or e ab out

w he re he ha d be enove r the w ee ke nd; Irick told Bray

he had visited h is sister in Atlanta. Br ay the n e xpl ai ne d hi s sus pic ion s to I ri ck

and a ske d if

he c oul d lo ok i n th e tr

uc k. I ri ck

tol d B ray

that he ha d agunin the c onso le but no o the r ill ic it m at er ia ls, and h e ga ve Br ay c onse nt t oBr ay

obtained Irick’s c onsent to sear ch the truc k approximately eig ht minutes int o the stop. 2Irick does not c halleng e the lawfulne ss of the initial traffic stop, his consent, or the duration of 3 his detention. 4 secure the w eapon and search the truck. Bray discovered a black ny lon bag n ear 2 th e fl oo rb oa rdwhi ch co nt ai ne d s ev eral bri ck s o f co cai ne . W e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in de ny ing I ri ck ’ s m oti on t o supp re ss b ec au se obj ec tiv e re as ona ble sus pic ione xis te d th at I ri ck w as e nga ge d in oth er c ri m ina l a ct ivi ty

and tha t r ea sona

ble sus pic ionj ust if

ie d th e de te nti on u

p to the poi nt I ri ck

c onse nte d to the se ar ch
. W e fi rs t no te that B ray ’ s su spi ci ons ar ose 3 du rin g h is in it ia l q ue st io ni ng of I ric k, wh il e th e o rig in al tra ffi c st op was g oi ng on . A nd B ray art ic ulate d part ic ulari ze d ob j ec tiv e ba se s f

or his sus pic ion s, inc lud ing the pr es en ce of

f ood co nta ine rs in Ir ic k’ s c ar c oupl ed w ithBr ay ’ s kn ow le dge about drug traff

icking, Irick’ s lack of luggage in the lig ht of his expl anation that he ha d b een in Atl an ta forth e week en d, h is ne rv ou sn es s, an d t ha t I- 20 is a kn own dr ug c or ri dor
. S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. H er

nande z, 418 F . 3d 1 206 (1 1thCi r. 200 5) (c onsi de ri ng f

ood co nta ine rs in the de fe ndant’ s c ar , the pur porte d le ngth of de fe ndant’ s tr ip and s m al l am ount of lug ga ge , and d ef

en dant’ s ne rv ousn es s in concludin g that a traff

ic stop did not vio late the Fourth Am endm ent). Although each bases a lone m ay not have been strong ly

probative of crim inal
ac tiv ity , und er

the tot al ity

of the c ir cum stanc es and b as ed on B ray ’ s kn ow le dge ofMiranda v. Arizona, 86 S.Ct . 1602 (1966). 4 5 drug interdictio n, the cir cum stances rose to the level of re asonable sus picion. See T ap ia , 912 F . 3d at 13 70 ( re as ona ble sus pic ionr equir es that the of fi ce r “ be able to poin t to specific and articulable fa cts which, taken together with rational inf er en ce s f ro m tho se f ac ts, r ea sona

bly w ar rant [ the ] intru sio n” ; and a sin gle f ac tor co nsi ste nt w ithinn oc en t trave l m ay , w he n c om bin ed w ithoth er

f ac ts, giv e ri se to re as ona ble sus pic ion ). C onstru ing the f ac ts i n th e lig ht m ost

f av or ab le to the gove rn m en t - - the pr ev ai lin g party - - w e co nc lud e that B ray ha d th e re qui sit e re as ona ble sus pic ionto de ta in I ri ck be y ond the ini tia l tra ff

ic sto p. W e re view I rick’ s rem aining argum ents about evi dentiary rulings for an ab use of dis cr et ion
. U nit ed

S ta te s v. P er ez -O liv er os, 479 F . 3d 7 79, 783 (11th Cir.) , c ert. denied, 127 S.C t. 2964 (2007 ). Ir ick contends that the district
co urt vi olate d hi s F if

th A m en dm en t r igh ts b y

a llo w ing of

fi ce rs to te sti fy

about Ir ic k’ s f ai lur e to answ er

c er ta in que sti ons af

te r his arr es t. T w o of I ri ck ’ s c ha lle nge s c onc er n hi s po st- ar

re st, pos t- Mi randa -w ar

nin g 4 silence in refusing to ident ify the person who asked him to pick up the bag
co nta ini ng the dr

ugs. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n ina llo w ing te sti m ony about thi s si le nc e be ca

use I ri ck w ai ve d hi s M ir an dar igh ts, m ad e inculpato ry

statem ents, and then testified at trial about an alibi defense thatIrick initially told of fice rs that he suspected that the bagcontained illeg al drug s; but at trial, he 5 t es t i fi edth ath e d i d

n o tkn o w o r c o n s i d er

wh atwa s i nth e b ag. 6 co ntr ad ic te d th e inc ulp at or y state m en ts. Ade fe ndant who “ vol unt ar ily spe ak s 5 af te r re ce ivi ng M ir an daw ar nin gs” ha s no t be en“ ind

uc ed to re m ai n si le nt” , and the pr ose cu tio n m ay

c ro ss- ex am ine him

a t tri al about

pr ior inc onsi ste nt s ta te m en ts
m ad e af te r the w ar

nin gs w er e giv en . A nde rs on v . Ch ar le s, 100 S
. Ct
. 218 0, 218 2 (1 980) ; se e al so L of

tonv. W ai nw ri ght , 620 F . 2d 7 4, 77 ( 5thCi r. 198 0) (concluding , in habeas c ontext, that no Fifth Am endm ent violatio n occurred w here defendant initiallysubm itted to qu estionin g, m ade inculpatory statem ents, then contradicted those statem ents at trial). Ir ic k a lso c ha lle nge s B ray ’ s tr ia l t es tim ony - - w hic h c am e in r es pons e to a de fe nse que sti on o n w he the r the of fi ce rs tr ie d to c ont ac t I ri ck ’ s si ste r -- about Ir ic k’ s po st- ar

re st, but pr e- Mi randa -w ar

nin g r ef usa l t o ta lk t o of

fi ce rs ; this te sti m ony a lso doe s no t vi olate the F if th A m en dm en t. S ee F le tc he r v. W ei r, 102 S. Ct. 1309 , 1312 (1982) (com m ent about a defendant’ s post -arr est but preMi randa -w ar

nin g si le nc e doe s no t vi olate the F if th A m en dm en t be ca

use the de fe ndant h as not

be engiv en“ af

fi rm at ive a ssuranc es e m

bodi ed in the Mi randa
w ar nin gs” about

the r igh t t o r em ai n si le nt) ; se e al so Unit ed S ta te s v. Ch as ta in, 198 F. 3d 1 338, 135 1- 52 ( 11th C ir
. 199 9) ( if te sti m ony

about de fe ndant’ s si le nc e isWe note that I ri ck d i d n o t object to this testimony at trial; but even unde r the hig her a buse of 6 discretion standa

rd, we discern no e rror . 7 responsiv e to defense counsel’ s questio n about th e office r’ s investi gation o f a
cr i m e, th at t es t i m o n y wi l l n o tb e c o n s t ru ed as a c o m m en to n th e d ef

en d an t ’s exercise of his right to rem ain silent). 6 Ir ic k a lso arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in adm itt ing e xpe rt

te sti m ony ab out dr ug tra ff ic kin g be ca

use it w as ir re le vant. B ut the te sti m ony w as r el ev an t t o Irick’ s knowing p ossessi on of and his intent to d istribut e the drugs. S ee U nited St at es v. Q uil ca -C ar

pio , 118 F . 3d 7 19, 721 -2 2 ( 11th C ir
. 199 7) ( te sti m ony about the quanti ty

or va lue of dr ugs se iz ed

m ay be use d to pr ove that a

pe rs on c au ght
w iththe dr

ugs kne wof

the ir pr es en ce be ca

use aj ur y c oul d in fe r that “ a ‘ pr

ude nt sm uggl er ’ is not

li ke ly to en tr ust suc h va lua

ble c ar go t o an in noc en t pe rs on w ith out that pe rs on’ s kn ow le dge ”) ; U nit ed S tate s v. T ino co , 304 F . 3d 1 088, 112 1 (1 1thCi r. 200 2) ( suc h te sti m ony a lso is re le vant t o sh owde fe ndant’ s in te nt t o dis tr ibu te be ca

use it m ay sho wthat the dr

ugs w er e “ not

f or pe rs ona l c onsum

pti on, but f or larg e- sc al e dis tr ibu tio n” ). E xpe rt s a lso pr ope rl y m ay te sti fy about the sig nif ic an ce of c er ta in c ondu ct

or m ethods of

ope ratio n un iqu e to the dr ugWe rejec t Irick’s argument that the testimony went beyond proper

modus operandi testimony and 7 cre ated a n improper drug courie r prof ile that confor

med to the evidenc e pre sented a g ainst Irick. See United Sta t es v . C ro s s , 9 28 F.2d 1030, 1050 n.66 ( 11th Cir. 1991). We also conclude that the admission of this testi mony was not unfa irly

prejudicia l under F ed.R.Evid. 403. 8 distribu tion b usiness . United States v. Butler, 102 F.3d 1191 , 1199 (11th Cir. 1997 ). 7 AFFIR MED.