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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JEFFREY ALAN B U C HANAN, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-30007

D.C . No. 4:14-c r-00056-B M M -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. KR ISTY DAW

N SUM M ER S, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-30008

D.C . No. 4:14-c r-00056-B M M -2

Appe a l from

the Unite d

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

na B ria n M
. M orris, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding 

# F IL ED
F EB 11 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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.Subm itte d Fe brua ry 5, 2016 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN a

nd GOULD, C irc uit Judge s and B UR N S, * ** Distric t Judge
. Je ffre y

Ala n B uc h ana

n a nd Kristy Dawn Sum

m e rs a ppe a l the ir c o nvic tions for Posse ssion with Inte

nt to Distribute

M e tha m phe t am ine , a viola

tion of 21 U.S.C
. § 841(a )(1). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. I The brie f inve stiga

tory stop tha t le d to B uc ha

na n a nd Sum m e rs’ arre sts wa s pe rm issiblebe c a

use la w e nforc e m e nt ha d re a sona ble suspic ion tha

t the two we re involve d in c rim ina l a c tivity
. Se e Hiibe l v . 6th J ud. Dist. C

t. of N e v ., Humboldt C nty
. , 542 U.S. 177, 185 (2004). The c onfide ntia l inform ant’ s tip wa s re lia ble be c a use he wa s a

“ re giste re d inform ant” with B o rde r Pa trol, he ha d provide d inform a t ion on num e rous oc c a sions le a ding to the se iz ure of at le a st 49 pounds of
m arijua na , a nd he e xpla ine d the sourc e of his suspic ion to la w e n forc e m e nt. Se e Unite d State s v . Row l and , 464 F.3d 899, 907–09 (9th C ir. 2006). Additiona l ly , Age nt B randon La

w wa s a ware tha t the Am trak route wa s popula

r for drug

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

ble La rry A. B urns, Distric t

Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion. 2sm

uggling, and the pa ir ha d ra i se d suspic ions during the ir pre vious trip to Ha vre , M onta na . In c onside ring “ the tota lity of the c irc um sta

nc e s,” he re “ the de ta i ning offic e rs [ha d ] a pa rtic ula riz e d a nd obje c tive ba sis for suspe c ting thepa rtic ula r pe rson[s] stoppe d of c rim ina l a c tivity .” Unite d State s v . C orte z , 449 U.S. 411, 417–18 (1981). At theve ry

le a s t, the gove rnm e nt de m onstra te d tha t the re wa s “ a

m ode ra te
c ha nc e of finding e vide nc e of wrongdoing.” Unite d State s v . K ing , 736 F.3d 805, 811 n.4 (9th C ir. 2013) (quoting Safford Unifie d Sc h. Dist. N

o. 1 v . Re d

ding , 557 U.S. 364, 371 (2009)). The inve stiga tory stop wa s thus pe rm issible
. Nor wa s the brie f dog sniff im prope r. A c anine sniff te st of lugga ge
c onduc te d in a

public pla c e is not a

“ se a rc h” unde r the Fourth Am e ndm e n t a nd is pe rm issibleso long a s the inve stiga tive de te ntion is properly

lim ite d in sc ope . Se e Unite d State s v . Plac e , 462 U.S. 696, 706–707 (1983). He re , the dog sniff took no
m ore tha n thre e to five m inute s , wa s c onduc te d at the loc at ion of the stop in full vie wof B uc ha

na n a nd Sum m e rs, a nd a ge nts took c are to inform B u c ha na n and Sum m e rs a bout theproc e ss. I I The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing Sum m e rs’ m otion to suppre ss the sta te m e nts she m a de to la

w e nforc e m e nt. B e c a

use the “ obje c tive c irc um sta nc e s” of 3Sum

m e rs’ inte ra c tion with la

w e nforc e m e nt de m onstra te that Sum

m e rs wa s not in polic e c ustody

whe n she wa s a ske d if she wa s c arry i ng c ontra ba nd, no Miranda
warning wa s re quire d. Se e How e s v . Fie lds , 132 S. C t. 1181, 1189 (2012). AFFIRM E D.

4