T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t16,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. R O B E R T W IS N IE W S K I, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. EDD Y G AM EZ, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N os . 05- 4241 and 05- 4248 ( D . U t ah) (D . C . N o . 2 :03 -C R -39 0 -D B )

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *T he H onor abl e M ar ci a S. K r i eger , U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge fort he ** D i s tr i ctof C ol or ado, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. M r . W i s ni ew s ki and M r . G amez do notchal l enge the val i di tyof the 1 i ni t i al tr aff

i c s t op, nordo theycont end thatM r . W i s ni ew s ki ’ s cons entt o s ear ch the truck w as i nval i d. I ndeed, theym ake no s peci fi c ar gum entas t o w hyt he ev iden ce seize d fro m the truc k sh o u ld b e su p p resse d in li g h t of M r. W isniew sk i’ s c o n s e n t to s e a rc h th e tru c k . W hen ther e has been a Four th A m endmentvi ol at i on, a cons entt o s ear ch w h ic h fo llo w s th e v io la tio n c a n n e v e rt h e le s s b e v a lid . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Me len d ez-G a rc ia , 28 F . 3d 10 46 , 10 53 (10t h C i r. 19 94 ). In such cir cum st ances, w e cons i derw hetherther e w as a br eak i n the ca us al connec t i on betw een the c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n a n d th e e v id e n c e o b ta in e d . See i d. N eith er M r. W i s ni ew s ki norM r . G amez s peci fi cal l ycont end thatt he cons entt o s ear ch w as ta in te d b yth e a lle g e d F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t v io la tio n . -2- B efor e BRI S CO E and HA RTZ , C i r cui tJ udges , and KR I EGER , D i s tr i ctJ udge. ** I n thi s cons ol i dat ed appe al , E ddyG amez and R obertW i s ni ew s ki cont end thatthe tr i al courterr ed i n deny i ng thei rm ot i ons t o s uppr es s evi dence s ei zed f r om a tru c k d u rin g a tra ffic s to p . In sp e c ific, th e ya rg u e th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in fi ndi ng thatthe obs ervat i ons of Sgt . M angel s on, w ho conduct ed the s t op, c o n stitu ted re a so n a b le s u sp icio n to d e tain th e d riv e r o f th e tru c k , M r. W isn iew sk i, b e y o n d th e tim e n e c e s s a ry to v e ri f yh is lic e n s e a n d th e v e h ic le ’s re g is tr a tio n . T hus , theycont end thatevi dence obt ai ned dur i ng a s ear ch thatgr ew outof the unl aw ful det ent i on s houl d be s uppr es s ed. W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 1 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffir m .E vi dent i aryhear i ngs w er e hel d on A ugus t7, 2003, A ugus t12, 2003, 2 O ct ober23, 2003 and J ul y20, 2004. -3- I. F a cts M r . W i s ni ew s ki fi l ed a mot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence obt ai ned dur i ng a s ear ch of a truck he ha d been dr i vi ng al ong I - 15 nearN ephi , U t ah. H e ar gued, in tera lia , tha t th e o ffice r w h o c o n d u c ted th e sto p lac k e d re a so n a b le s u sp icio n to det ai n hi m aft erhi s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e and the truck’ s r egi s tr at i on had bee n cl ear ed thro u g h d ispa tch. B ysep ara te m o ti o n , M r. G am ez joine d in M r. W isniew sk i’ s m o tio n . T he G overnm entoppos ed the mot i ons . I tar gued thatM r . W i s ni ew s ki and M r. G am ez b o th lack ed stan d ing to ch all en g e the sea rch o f th e truc k , an d that M r. W i s ni ew s ki ’ s det ent i on w as s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e s us pi ci on. Fol l ow i ng fourevi dent i aryhear i ngs on the mot i on, t he tr i al courtfound the fo ll o w ing fa cts. W ith o n e e x ce p ti o n , sp ec ifi ed b elow , thes e find ing s are 2 u n c h a lle n g e d . A t9: 30 a. m . on M ay22, 2003, Ser geantPaul M angel s on of the U t ah Hi g h wa yP a tr o l wa s mo n i t o r i n g tr a ffi c o n I - 1 5 s o u th o f Ne p h i , Ut a h , f

r o m a cr os s overi n t he medi an of the i nt er s t at e. H e obs erved a bl ack pi ckup truck headi ng nor thbound on t he i nt er s t at e. H i s r adargun i ndi cat ed thatt he truck w as tr avel i ng at63 m . p. h. , w el l bel ow t he 75 m. p. h. s peed l i m i t , buthe obs erved thatB oth M r . W i s ni ew s ki and M r . G amez cont end thatthi s fac tual fi ndi ng 3 w a s c lea rlye rro n e o u s b e c a u se it i s a n a to m ica llyim p o ss ib le fo r a sto m a c h to “vi s i bl ychurn. ” The G overnm entdoes notaddr es s t hi s cont ent i on. M r . G amez l i ved i n C al i forni a buthe s t or ed the truck att he home of a 4 fr i end named “Soci o” i n I ndi ana. A tone poi nt , M r . G amez s t at ed dur i ng a (c o n tin u e d ...) -4- the dr i verappea r ed t o be “gl ued” t o the s t eer i ng w heel . B el i evi ng thatthe dr i ver w a s im p a ir e d b yfa tig u e o r s o m e th in g e ls e , h e b e g a n to fo llo w th e tru c k . S g t. M a n g e lso n th e n o b se rv e d th e tru c k c ro ss th e lan e d iv id e r o n th e rig h thand s i de of the i nt er s t at e s ever al t i m es . H e pul l ed up nextt o the truck, not i ced thatthe dr i vers eemed t o be “i n a tr ance ” and w as s t i l l “gl ued” t o the s t eer i ng w heel , and s i gnal ed fort he truck t o s t op i n or dert o i nves t i gat e w hetherthe dr i ver w as over l yt i r ed. A ft ert he truck s t opped, Sgt . M angel s on appr oache d i tfr om the pas s enger s i de and a s ked the s ol e occ upant , R obertW i s ni ew s ki , forhi s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e and the v ehicl e’s regi strat i on . M r. W i sni ew ski produ ced an Indi ana d ri ver’ s l i cense an d a re g istrati o n d o cu m en t from Ind iana . S g t. M an g elso n o b serv ed that M r. W isn iew sk i ap p e a re d n e rv o u s, h is h a n d w a s tre m b lin g , h e a p p e a re d to h a v e tro u b le s p e a k in g b e c a u s e h is m o u th w a s “ d ry,” a n d h is s to m a c h w a s “ v is ib ly ch u rn in g .” 3 Sgt . M angel s on des cr i bed M r . W i s ni ew s ki as appea r i ng “s car ed t o death. ” A ccor di ng t o i t s r egi s tr at i on, t he truck w as notow ned byM r . W i s ni ew s ki buti ns t ead w as ow ned byE ddyG amez. Sgt . M angel s on as ked M r . W i s ni ew s ki 4( . . . cont i nued) 4 r ecor ded conve r s at i on w i th hi s at t or neythathe agr eed t o l etM r . W i s ni ew s ki borr ow the truck t o l ook forw or k. H e l at ert es t i fi ed thatthe coc ai ne found i n t he tru c k wa s h i s a n d th a tM r . W i s n i e ws k i wa s tr a n s p o r t i n g i ta s a fa v o rt o h i m. -5- w ho ow ned the truck; M r . W i s ni ew s ki i dent i fi ed “Eddy ” as the ow nerbut s tu m b le d o v e r E d d y ’s la s t n a m e , id e n tif y in g it a s s o m e th in g o th e r t h a n G a m e z . S g t. M a n g e ls o n in q u ir e d a s to w h yM r. W is n ie w s k i w a s d ri v in g th e tru c k . M r. W is n ie w s k i r e s p o n d e d th a t E d d yw a s a f ri e n d w h o h a d lo a n e d h im th e tru c k . S g t. M an g elso n then ask ed M r. W isniew sk i w h ere h is tri p h ad o ri g inated . M r. W i s ni ew s ki r es ponded thathe had be en i n L as V egas l ooki ng forcons truct i on w o rk. S g t. M an g elso n h ad d o u b ts ab o u t th is an sw er b ec au se M r. W isniew sk i’ s hands di d notappea rt o be thos e of a cons truct i on w or ker– t heyw er e s m ooth, ra th e r t h a n ro u g h a n d c a llo u s e d . Sgt . M angel s on det ect ed a “ verys tr ong” odorof ai rfr es henerand obs erved a ce l l phone, r oad at l as and r adardet ect ori n the truck. H e s aw veryl i t t l e l uggage and no cons truct i on t ool s i n the ca b of the truck, buthe coul d notdet erm i ne w hethers uch i t ems w er e pr es enti n the cove r ed truck bed. Sgt . M angel s on as ked M r. W i sni ew ski t o ex i tthe truck t o p erform sobri et yt est s. T he resul t s of t hese tes ts in d ica ted th a t M r. W isn iew sk i w a s fa tig u e d b u t n o t in to x ica ted o r p h y sic a lly im p a ir e d . A ft erconduct i ng the s obr i etyt es t s , and bas ed upon hi s exper i ence andA tthe t i m e of hi s encount erw i th M r . W i s ni ew s ki , Sgt . M angel s on had 5 w or ked forthe U t ah H i ghw ayPatr ol forappr oxi m at el y37 y ear s . H e had s peci al i zed tr ai ni ng i n hi ghw aydrug i nt er di ct i on, w as a mem berof a drug i nt er di ct i on t eam, and tr ai ned otherl aw enfor cementoffi cer s i n drug i nt er di ct i on t echni ques . H e t es t i fi ed thatthe us e of thi r d- partyvehi cl es w as comm on i n drug s m uggl i ng and thatdrug tr aff i cker s m anyt i m es ar e unabl e t o pr ovi de the corr ect name of a vehi cl e’ s r egi s t er ed ow ner . H e al s o t es t i fi ed thathe w oul d have expec t ed M r . W i s ni ew s ki t o know t he name of the r egi s t er ed ow nerof the truck b e c a u se it w a s re lativ e lyn e w a n d in g o o d c o n d iti o n . H e f u rth e r te stified th a t air fres hen ers are used bydrug tr afficker s t o m ask t he scen tof d rugs. M r. W isniew sk i con tend s tha t th is pa t- d o w n sea rch w as il lega l. H o w ev er, 6 no thing w as fou nd du ri ng that s earch t o sup press . T he tr i al courtm ade no f i ndi ngs w i th r egar d t o the l ength of the 7 det ent i on up t o thi s poi ntorther eaf t er . T he appe l l ant s do notcont end thatt he l ength of the det ent i on w as unr eas onabl e, onl yt hati tw as nots uppor t ed by r eas onabl e s us pi ci on aft erver i fi cat i on of M r . W i s ni ew s ki ’ s i dent i tyand the tru c k ’s re g is tr a tio n . -6- tra in in g a s a h ig h w a yp a tro l tro o p e r a n d d ru g in ter d ictio n sp e c ialist, S g t. M a n g e lso n su sp e c ted th a t M r. W isn iew sk i w a s tra n sp o rtin g c o n tra b a n d . S g t. 5 M angel s on es cort ed M r . W i s ni ew s ki t o hi s patr ol car . H e patt ed hi m dow n for w eapo ns, then seat ed h i m i n the pat rol car w hil e he v eri fi ed the dri ver’ s l i cense an d w h ethe r th e truc k w as re p o rt ed stolen . W h il e sit ti n g in the p atrol ca r, M r. 6 W i s ni ew s ki vol unt eer ed thathe had be en arr es t ed fi ve t i m es fordr i vi ng undert he i nfl uence . T he di s pat cherr eport ed thathi s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e w as val i d and that th e re w a s n o re p o rt o f th e tru c k b e in g s to le n . A t th is p o in t, M r. W isn iew sk i as k e d w h e th e r h e w a s f re e to g o . S g t.

7 M angel s on ans w er ed thatM r . W i s ni ew s ki w as notfr ee t o l eave beca us e heT h e p a rties d o n o t ch a llen g e th e trial c o u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t S g t. 8 (c o n tin u e d ...) -7- bel i eved thatM r . W i s ni ew s ki w as tr ans por t i ng drugs . Sgt . M angel s on s t at ed that he w ant ed t o s ear ch the truck. M r . W i s ni ew s ki deni ed tr ans por t i ng drugs but a u th o riz e d S g t. M a n g e lso n to “ g o a h e a d ” a n d se a rc h th e tru c k . A t n o tim e in th e ir conver s at i on di d Sgt . M angel s on r ai s e hi s voi ce, thr eat en M r . W i s ni ew s ki , m ove c l o s e rt o h i m, p o i n ta th i m, o rt o u c h h i m. M r . W i s n i e w s k i e x i t e d th e p a tr o l c a r . A n o th e ro ffi c e r , T r o o p e rK e l s e y, arr i ved, and as s i s t ed Sgt . M angel s on i n s ear chi ng the truck. T heyfound 134 br i cks of coc ai ne, eac h w ei ghi ng 1 ki l ogr am, cont ai ned i n fourduffl e bags and a s u itc a s e . T h e ya rr e s te d M r. W is n ie w s k i. B ase d u p o n thes e fac ts, the tri al co u rtd en ied th e m o ti o n s to su p p ress. It concl uded that( 1) M r . W i s ni ew s ki had s t andi ng t o chal l enge the s ear ch of the truck bec aus e he w as i n l aw ful pos s es s i on and contr ol of i tatthe t i m e of the s ear ch; ( 2) M r . G amez, as t he truck’ s ow nerand as ow nerof the coc ai ne, al s o had sta n d in g to c h a llen g e th e se a rc h ; (3 ) S g t. M a n g e lso n h a d re a so n a b le s u sp icio n to bel i eve thatM r . W i s ni ew s ki w as i nvol ved i n cr i m i nal act i vi tys uffi ci entt o j us t i fy hi s det ent i on; ( 4) M r . W i s ni ew s ki ’ s cons entt o s ear ch the truck w as val i d; and (5 ) S g t. M a n g e lso n lac k e d p ro b a b le c a u se to se a rc h th e tru c k u n d e r th e a u to m o b ile e x c e p tio n to th e w a rra n t re q u ire m e n t. 8( . . . cont i nued) 8 M angel s on l acke d pr obabl e ca us e t o s ear ch the truck. T her efor e, w e do not addr es s thi s i s s ue. -8- W ith re g a rd to re a so n a b le s u sp icio n , the trial c o u rt b ro k e its a n a ly sis in to three st ages: (1) from the ini t i al st op t o the con cl usi on of the fi el d sob ri et yt est s; ( 2) fr om the conc l us i on of the fi el d s obr i etyt es t s t o the mom entw hen the di s pat cheri nform ed Sgt . M angel s on thatthe dr i ver ’ s l i cens e w as val i d and the tru ck w as n o t st o len; an d (3) f rom the d ispa tche r’s repo rtto the m o m en t w h en M r. W isn iew sk i co n se n ted to th e se a rc h o f th e tru c k . In th is a p p e a l, th e c h a llen g e is l i m i t ed t o s t age 3. W i th r egar d t o s t age 3, the tr i al cour tconcl uded thatther e w as r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o det ai n M r . W i s ni ew s ki beca us e he appear ed t o be ex tr em elyn erv o u s, the truc k w as re g ist ere d to a th ir d p artyw h o se n am e M r. W isn iew sk i co u ld n o t p ro n o u n c e , the re w a s a v e rystro n g o d o r o f a ir f re sh e n e r in th e tru c k , M r. W isn iew sk i’s tra v e l p lan s w e re im p lau sib le b e c a u se h is h a n d s d id notappea rt o be thos e of a cons truct i on w or ker , ther e w er e a c el l phone, at l as and ra d a r d e tec to r in th e tru c k , an d th e re w a s n o lu g g a g e in th e tru c k ’s m a in co m p artm en t. In it s an aly sis, the tri al co u rtd ec li n ed to co n side r th at M r. W isn iew sk i w a s tra v e lin g f ro m a “ so u rc e c ity ” a s a fa c to r fa v o rin g re a so n a b le s u s p ic io n . M r . W i s ni ew s ki w as i ni t i al l yi ndi ct ed on a s i ngl e countof Poss es s i on of-9-

C ocai ne W i th I nt entt o D i s tr i but e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) , and ai di ng a n d a b e tti n g th e sa m e in v io latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 . B e c a u se th e c o c a in e a n d its cont ai ner s r evea l ed the pr es ence of M r . G amez’ fi ngerpr i nt s , the G overnm ent obt ai ned a tw o- counts uper cedi ng i ndi ctm ent . I tchar ged both M r . W i s ni ew s ki and M r. G a m e z w ith : ( 1 ) C o n s p ir a c yto D is tr ib u te C o c a in e in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 846; and ( 2) Poss es s i on of C ocai ne W i th I nt entt o D i s tr i but e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )( 1 ), a n d a id in g a n d a b e ttin g th e s a m e in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 . F o ll o w ing the d en ial o f th eir sup p ression m o ti o n s, b o th M r. W isniew sk i and M r. G amez ent er ed condi t i onal gui l typl eas t o C ount2. M r . W i s ni ew s ki w as s ent ence d t o 108 m onths i m pr i s onm entand 5 y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. M r . G amez w as s ent ence d t o 156 m onths i m pr i s onm entand 5 y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e.

I I . D i s cus s i on O n appea l , M r . W i s ni ew s ki and M r . G amez cont end thatt he tr i al courterr ed w h e n it co n c lu d e d th a t S g t. M a n g e lso n ’s o b se rv a tio n s c o n stitu ted re a so n a b le su sp ici o n to d etain M r. W isniew sk i after the d ispa tche r rep o rt ed that h is driver’s lice n se w a s v a lid a n d th a t th e tru c k w a s n o t sto len . T h e ya lleg e tw o e rro rs in p arti cu lar: (1) tha t i t w as c lear erro r fo r th e tri al co u rtto find that M r. W isn iew sk i’s s to m a c h w a s “ v isib lyc h u rn in g ;” a n d (2 ) th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in c o n c lu d in g th a t th e in fo rm a tio n k n o w n to S g t. M a n g e lso n g a v e rise to re a so n a b le-10-

s us pi ci on s uffi ci entt o ext end M r . W i s ni ew s ki ’ s det ent i on bey ond ver i fi cat i on of h is lic e n s e a n d th e v e h ic le ’s re g is tr a tio n . A s to the sec o n d co n tention , the a p p ell an ts argu e tha t m an yo f th e fac tors r el i ed upon byt he tr i al courtw er e cons i s t entw i th i nnocenttr avel and s houl d not h av e b ee n g iven an yw eigh t i n the d eterm ination o f re aso n ab le su sp ici o n . In sp ec ifi c, th eyasse rtthat the tri al co u rt ’s co n side rati o n o f M r. W isniew sk i’ s nervous nes s w as i m pr operbeca us e i tw as notoutof the or di nary . T heyal s o ar gue th a t th e tru c k ’s o w n e rsh ip b yM r. G a m e z d id n o t co n trib u te to re a so n a b le s us pi ci on beca us e M r . W i s ni ew s ki demonstr at ed thathe w as ent i t l ed t o oper at e the truck and s i m pl ym i s pr onounced M r . G amez’ name. T heyal s o cont end thatthe s i ngl e ai rfr es henerdi d notcontr i but e t o r eas onabl e s us pi ci on beca us e i tcoul d be combi ned onl yw i th ot heri nnocentfac t or s . T heyfur thernot e thatSgt . M angel s on di d nott ake a cl os e l ook atM r . W i s ni ew s ki ’ s hands t o confi r m the abs ence of cal l ous es , notal l cons truct i on w or k caus es r ougheni ng of the hands , and the a b s e n c e o f

c a llo u s e s is c o n s is te n t w ith b e in g a n u n e m p lo y e d c o n s tru c tio n w o rk e r. T heypoi ntoutthatpeopl e w ho ar e tr avel i ng comm onl ypos s es s r oad at l as es , r adar det ect or s , and ce l l phones , and ar gue thatthes e i t ems ca n onl ybe gi ven an i nnocentconnot at i on. Fi nal l y , theyas s er tthatthe abs ence of l uggage i n the ca b of th e tru c k w a s m e a n in g les s b e c a u se th e re w a s a c o v e re d c a b w h e re lu g g a g e c o u ld b e s to re d .T he G overnm ental s o ar gues t hatM r . G amez l acks s t andi ng t o chal l enge 9 M r . W i s ni ew s ki ’ s det ent i on. M r . G amez cont ends t hatt he G overnm enthas not pr oper l yr ai s ed the i s s ue of s t andi ng on appea l . B eca us e s t andi ng t o m ake a F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t c h a lle n g e is n o t ju ri s d ic tio n a l, w e d e c lin e to a d d re s s it. See Un ite dS ta te s v . D eL u c a , 2 6 9 F .3 d 1 1 2 8 , 1 1 3 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). -11- T h e G o v ern m en t do es n o t r esp o n d to the asse rt ion that the tri al co u rt ’s fa c tu a l fin d in g o f

a “ v isib lyc h u rn in g ” sto m a c h w a s c lea rlye rro n e o u s. It resp o n d s o n ly that there w as rea so n ab le su sp ici o n to d etain M r. W isniew sk i. In 9 part i cul ar , i tar gues thatthe fol l ow i ng fac t or s contr i but ed t o r eas onabl e s us pi ci on – M r . W i s ni ew s ki di d notow n t he truck and c oul d notpr onounce the name on t he r e g i s tr a t i o n , th e s tr o n g o d o ro f a i rf r e s h e n e r , M r . W i s n i e ws k i ’ s e x tr e me nervou sness, the fa ctthat M r. W i sni ew ski app eared t o b e sl eepy , becau se in d iv id u a ls w h o tra n sp o rt d ru g s typ ica lly“ d riv e stra ig h t th ro u g h to th e ir des t i nat i on, ” M r . W i s ni ew s ki ’ s fai l ur e t o acknow l edge the tr ooper s as he dr ove pastthem on the int ers t at e, the ab sence o f cal l ou ses on M r. W i sni ew ski ’s han ds, w hi ch s ugges t ed thathe w as nota cons truct i on w or ker , m aki ng hi s t r avel pl ans i m pl aus i bl e, the fa ctthatM r . W i s ni ew s ki w as dr i vi ng fr om a “s our ce c i ty ” al ong a drug pi pel i ne, the abs ence of l uggage i n the pas s engercompar t m ent , and the p re s e n c e o f

a c e ll p h o n e , a tla s a n d ra d a r d e te c to r i n th e tru c k . I n e v a l u a t i n g th e tr i a l c o u r t ’ s ru l i n g o n t h e s u p p r e s s i o n mo t i o n , “ we con si der the tot al i tyof the ci rcum st ances an d v i ew t he ev i den ce i n a li gh tm ost-12-

favor abl e t o the governm ent . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Long , 1 7 6 F .3 d 1 3 0 4 , 1 3 0 7 (1 0 th Ci r . 1 9 9 9 ) . T o t h e e x t e n tth a tt h e tr i a l c o u r t ’ s fa c tu a l fi n d i n g s a r e c h a l l e n g e d , we re v ie w th e m fo r c le a r e rr o r. S e e Un i t e dS ta t e s v . S i ms , 4 2 8 F .3 d 9 4 5 , 9 5 1 (1 0 th C i r. 20 05 ). W e revi ew t he tr i al cou rt ’s l egal conclusi on s de novo . See i d. T h e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t to th e U n ited S tate s C o n stitu tio n p ro v id e s th a t: T he ri gh tof the peo ple t o b e secure i n thei r per sons, h o u se s, p a p e rs, a n d e ffe c ts, a g a in st u n re a so n a b le s ear ches and s ei zur es , s hal l notbe vi ol at ed, and no W arr ant s s hal l i s s ue, butupon pr obabl e ca us e, s uppor t ed byO ath oraff

i r m at i on, and part i cul ar l ydes cr i bi ng the pl ace t o be s ear ched, and the per s ons orthi ngs t o be s ei zed. T h is A m e n d m e n t p ro tec ts in d iv id u a ls f ro m b e in g su bjec ted to u n re a so n a b le s e a rc h e s a n d s e iz u re s . See P enn sylvan i a v. Mi m m s, 4 3 4 U .S . 1 0 6 , 1 0 8 -0 9 (1 9 7 7 ). T he r eas onabl enes s of the s ear ch ors ei zur e depe nds upon a bal ance betw een the publ i c i nt er es tand the i ndi vi dual ’ s r i ghtt o be fr ee f r om arbi tr aryi nt er fer ence f ro m la w e n fo rc e m e n t o ffic e rs . See i d. at109. A s w e have s t at ed i n num er ous opi ni ons , a tr aff i c s t op i s a s ei zur e for p u rp o s e s o f

th e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. S e e , e . g . , Un i t e dS ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 271 F. 3d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 6 6 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); Un itedS ta tes v . Hu n n icu tt , 135 F. 3d 1345, 1348 ( 10th C i r . 1998) . H ow ever , i ti s m or e aki n t o an i nves t i gat i ve det ent i on than t o a c u s to d ia l a rr e s t. S e e Willia m s , 271 F. 3d at1266. T hus , the pr i nci pl es enunci at ed i n Te rr y v . O h io , 3 9 2 U .S . 1 (1 9 6 8 ) a re a p p lic a b le .-13-

W e h a v e a d d re ss e d th e p e rm iss ib le p a ra m e ter s o f a c o n tin u e d d e ten tio n in the s cope of

a tr aff i c s t op i n s ever al pr i orrul i ngs . I f the r eas onabl enes s of the i ni t i al det ent i on i s notchal l enged, then the i s s ue i s w hetherthe cont i nued det ent i on w as r eas onabl yr el at ed i n s cope t o the ci r cumst ance s w hi ch fi r s tj us t i fi ed th e d e te n tio n . Se e Wi l l i a ms , 271 F. 3d at1266 ( ci t i ng Terry ). T o a ss e ss its re a so n a b len e ss , w e lo o k a t th e len g th o f th e d e ten tio n a n d th e m a n n e r in w h ich it w a s c a rr ie d o u t. S e e id . a t1 2 6 7 ( q u o t i n g f r o m Un itedS ta tes v . Ho lt , 264 F. 3d 12 15 , 12 30 (10t h C i r. 20 01 )) . D uri ng a rout i ne tr affic s t op , an o ffi cer m ayrequest a dr i ver ’ s l i cens e and ve hi cl e r egi s tr at i on, run a comput erchec k, and i s s ue a c ita tio n fo r t h e tr a ffic v io la tio n . See Wi l l i am s, 2 7 1 F . 3 d a t1 2 6 7 - 6 8 . O r d i n a r i l y, once a dr i verhas compl i ed and be en cl ear ed orgi ven a c i t at i on, he mustbe al l ow ed t o pr ocee d on hi s w ayw i thoutfur therdel aybythe l aw enfor cement o ffic e r fo r a d d itio n a l q u e s tio n in g . See Uni t ed Stat es v. G uz m an , 864 F. 2d 1512, 1 5 1 9 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ), over r ul ed i n par ton othergr ounds , Uni t ed Stat es v. B ot er o- O s

pi na , 71 F. 3d 783 ( 10th C i r . 1995) . T o ext end the tr aff i c s t op aft er compl et i on of the ver i fi cat i on pr oces s , the l aw enfor cementoffi cerm us thave e ith e r th e c o n se n t o f

th e d e tain e e o r a n o bjec tiv e lyre a so n a b le a n d a rticu lab le s u s p ic io n th a t c ri m in a l a c tiv ity h a s o c c u rr e d o r i s o c c u rr in g . S e e Wi l l i a ms , 271 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 8 ; Hu n n icu tt , 1 3 5 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 9 . A s the Supr eme C our texpl ai ned i n United S tates v. A rvizu , 534 U . S. 266,-14-

2 7 4 (2 0 0 2 ), re a so n a b le s u sp icio n is a n a b stra c t co n c e p t w h ich c a n n o t b e re d u c e d to a “ n e a t se t o f

leg a l ru les .” (I n ter n a l q u o tatio n s a n d c itatio n s o m itt e d ). It ex ists w hen ther e i s a “pa r t i cul ar i zed a nd obj ect i ve bas i s fors us pect i ng cr i m i nal act i vi ty . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Tucker , 3 0 5 F . 3 d 1 1 9 3 , 1 2 0 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). In det erm i ni ng w hetheran off i cerpos s es s ed r eas onabl e s us pi ci on, w e r evi ew the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s and cons i derboth the quant i tyof i nform at i on p o s s e s s e d b yth e la w e n fo rc e m e n t o ffic e r a n d its re lia b ility. Id. ; s ee als o A rvizu , 534 U . S. at274. I n s uch ana l y s i s , w e do noteval uat e the fa ct s i n i s ol at i on and i ns t ead c ons true them t ogethert o di s cern w hetheran off i cercoul d obj ect i vel yand re a s o n a b ly su s p e c t th a t c ri m in a l a c tiv ity w a s a fo o t. See A rvizu , 534 U . S. at274 . A n “ in c h o a te a n d u n p a rticu lar ize d su sp icio n o r ‘h u n c h ’ is in su fficie n t” to s u p p o rt re a s o n a b le s u s p ic io n . S e e Un ite dS ta te s v . Ha ll, 9 7 8 F .2 d 6 1 6 , 6 2 0 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n s a n d c itatio n s o m itt e d ). H o w e v e r, re a so n a b le s us pi ci on m aybe pr emi s ed upon i nform at i on w hi ch i s l es s r el i abl e than that re q u ir e d to e s ta b lis h p ro b a b le c a u s e . See Tucker , 3 0 5 F . 3 d at 12 0 1 . F ac tors w hi ch ar e notpr oof of a nyi l l egal conductand w hi ch ar e cons i s t entw i th i nnocent tr a v e l m a ya ls o c o n tr ib u te to a re a s o n a b le s u s p ic io n . Un ite dS ta te s v . Va lle s , 292 F. 3d 678, 680 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. Sokol ow , 4 9 0 U .S . 1 , 9 ( 1989) ) . Such fac t or s m ayi ncl ude the abs ence of l uggage, ow ner s hi p of the v e h ic le b ya th ir d p a rt y , a n o d o r o f a irf re s h e n e r, a n d im p la u s ib le tr a v e l p la n s . See-15-

Uni t ed Stat es v. Mendez , 1 1 8 F .3 d 1 4 2 6 , 1 4 3 1 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ); Hu n n icu tt , 135 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 9 ; Uni t ed Stat es v. Sant os , 4 0 3 F . 3 d 1 1 2 0 , 1 1 2 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Salz ano , 158 F. 3d 1107, 1114 ( 10th C i r . 1998) . H ow ever , s uch fac t s m aybe gi ven l i t t l e orno w ei ghti f theyar e s us cept i bl e t o vary i ng in te rp re ta tio n s , i . e. , the a b se n c e o f lu g g a g e in th e b a c k se a t o f a c a r h a s littl e s ig n ific a n c e w h e n th e c a r h a s a tru n k . See Mendez , 118 F. 3d at1431. T he tr i al courtcons i der ed manyobs ervat i ons bythe off i ceri n det erm i ni ng thatther e w as r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o det ai n M r . W i s ni ew s ki aft erthe di s pat cher cl ear ed hi s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e and the truck’ s r egi s tr at i on. A l though w e mi ghthave a c c o rd e d in d iv id u a l o b se rv a tio n s d iffe re n t sig n ifica n c e th a n d id th e trial c o u rt, w h e n tak e n to g e th e r, th e yw e re su fficie n t to a m o u n t to re a so n a b le a rticu lab le s u s p ic io n . I I I . C oncl usi on T he tr i al cou rt ’s den i al of the m oti on s t o sup press i s AFF I RM ED .

E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt M ar ci a S. K r i eger D i s tr i ctJ udge