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

### Ju ly12,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH 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. N o. 06- 1222 CA RL OS VAL E NZ UE L A, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t.
APP EAL FROM THE UN I TED S TATES DI S TRI CT CO URT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF COLORA DO ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CR- 0 0 4 6 3 - LTB)
M ar t ha A
. Pal uch, A s s i s t antU ni t es St at es A t t or ney( T r oyA
. E i d, U ni t ed St at es A t t or neyw i t h heron t he br i ef) , D enver , C ol or ado, forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee. L ynn C
. H ar t fi el d, A s s i s t antFeder al Publ i c D efe ndant( R aym ond P. M oor e, F e d e ra l P u b lic D e fe n d e r w ith h e r o n th e b rie f ), D e n v e r, C o lo ra d o , fo r D e fe n d a n tA p p e llan t.
B efo re M C C O N N E L L , B A L D O C K , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.
BA LD OCK , C i r cui tJ udge.2

A f ter a G re e ley, C o lo ra d o p o lice o ffice r d is c o v e r e d a sa w e d -o ff sh o tg u n in D efe ndant ’ s v eh icl e duri ng a t r aff i c s t op, a gr and j ur yi ndi ct ed D efe ndanton one
c o u n to f p o s s e s s i o n o f

a n u n r e g i s t e r e d s a we d
- o ff s h o t g u n i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 6 U. S
. C. § 5861. D efe ndantm o v ed to su p pr es s t he s hot gun. A ccor di ng t o D efe ndant , t he offi cerdi d nothave r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o s t op hi s vehi cl e, o r, in the al t er nat i ve, t he off i cerunr eas onabl ypr ol onged t he t r aff i c s t op byaskin g h im ques t i ons out s i de t he s cope of

t he t r aff

i c vi ol at i on. T he di s t r i ctcour tco n clud ed the offi ceract ed
re a so n a b lyth ro u g h o u t th e c o u rse o f th e st o p a n d d e n ied D e fe n d a n t’s m o tio n to
s uppr es s . D efe n d an t subse quent l yent er ed a c ondi t i onal gui l t ypl ea, r es er vi ng t he
r i ghtt o appea l the d ist ri ct cour t ’ s or der
. See Fed. R
. C r i m . P. 11( a) ( 2)
. D efe ndant
now appea l s . W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 2 8 U
. S. C
. § 1291. W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s r eas onabl enes s det er m i nat i on de novo, s ee U ni t ed St at es v. R i ce, 483 F
. 3 d 1 0 7 9 , 1 0 8 2 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) , a n d a ffi r m. I. T he par t i es s t i pul at ed t o t he al l of t he fol l ow i ng fac t s : O n O ct ober 8, 2005, at appr oxi m at el y11: 59 p. m . , D et ect i ve Shad B axt erof t he G r eel ey , C ol or ado Pol i ce D epar t m entobs er ved a Li ncol n T ow n C art r avel i ng w es tbound in the l eftt hr ough l ane, di r ect l yahea d of hi s pat r ol car . B ax terw at ched a s t he Li ncol n cr os s ed t he
w h ite p a in te d la n e d iv id e r in to th e rig h t w e stb o u n d th ro u g h lan e . T h e L in c o ln d rif ted a p p ro x im a telyth re e to fo u r fe e t in to th e rig h t la n e , an d c o n tin u e d in th is
m anner fo r s e v e r a l s e c o n d s b e fo r e p u l l i n g b a c k i n t o t h e l e f t l a n e . Th e d r i v er of t he3

L i ncol n di s pl ay ed no si g n al befor e cr os s i ng i nt o t he r i ghtl ane orback i nt o t he l eftl ane. D etec t i ve B axt eract i vat ed hi s emer gencyl i ght s . D efe ndantpul l ed overand
s t opped t he Li ncol n nextt o t he curb. D et ect i ve B axt erw alke d to the dr i ver ’ s s i de
w in d o w . In sid e th e v e h icle h e sa w fo u r y o u n g m a les . D e tec tiv e B a x ter to ld D efe ndant w hy he had s t opped hi m , and as ked hi m for hi s dr i ver ’ s li ce ns e,
r egi s t r at i on, and proof of i ns ur ance . D efe ndant i nfor m ed D et ect i ve B axt er he di d not have hi s dri v er’ s l i cens e w i t h hi m buti dent i fi ed hi m s el f byname. D efe ndantt hen handed D et ect i ve B axt era pl as t i c s l eeve w i t h r egi s t r at i on and i ns ur ance i nfor m at i on fort he Li ncol n. D et ect i ve B axt erask ed D efendantw hetherhe w oul d be w i l l i ng t o getoutof th e c a r a n d sp e a k w ith h im . D e fe n d a n t ag re e d , g o t o u t o f th e c a r, an d w a lk e d w ith B axt ert o t he r earof t he Li ncol n. V er ys hor t l yi nt o t heir c o n v ersa t i on, D et ect i ve B axt eras ked D efe ndantw het herhe oranyof t he ot her s i n t he ca rhad anyt ype of
w eapons or i l l egal i t ems. D efe ndant ans w er ed by s ay i ng “not t hat I k n o w o f,” or
w o rd s to th a t effe c t. D e tec tiv e B a x ter th e n a sk e d w h e th e r it w o u ld b e “ O .K .” to
se a rc h th e v e h icle fo r w e a p o n s o r a n yo th e r illeg a l it e m s . D e fe n d a n t an sw e re d th is ques t i on byt el l i ng t he det ec ti v e a s hot gun w as i n t he bac k s eatar ea. D et ect i ve B axt erpr om p tl y h an d cuffed D efe ndantand pl ace d hi m i n t he bac ks eatof another
o fficer’s p atrol ca r w h ich h ad re c e n tly a rr ived as b ac k u p . T o en su re e v ery o n e’s
s afe t y , t he det ect i ve r emoved t he r emai ni ng occupa nt s fr om t he ca rand handc uffe d4

th e m a s w e ll. D et ect i ve B axt ert hen l ooked i nt o t he L i ncol n t hr ough t he r earw i ndow of t he dr i ver ’ s s i de. O n t he fl oorboar d behi nd t he dr i ver ’ s s eat , t he det ect i ve coul d s ee the b u tt sto c k o f

a sa w e d -o ff

sh o tg u n , w h ich w a s p a rtiallyw ra p p e d in a w h ite t-s h irt. T h e fir ea rm w as situated so that the b arrel-en d o f th e sh o tgu n w as p o inti n g tow ard t he fr ontof t he ca r , undert he dr i ver ’ s s eat . D et ecti v e B ax ter r et r i eved the s hot gun and t he i ndi ct m entfol l ow ed. II. A t r aff i c s t op i s a s ei zur e forFour t h A m endment purpos es , t he pr opr iet y of
w h ich w e m ea su re un d er th e st an d ard s set fo rt h in T erry v . O h io, 3 9 2 U
. S
. 1 (19 6 8 ). See U ni t ed St at es v. H unni cut t , 135 F. 3d 1345, 1348 ( 10t h C i r . 1998)
. W e cons i der th e d e te n tio n a s a w h o le , “ a n d th e to u c h s t o n e o f o u r i n q u ir yis re a s o n a b le n e s s .” U n ited S tate s v . P a tters o n , 4 7 2 F .3 d 7 6 7 , 7 7 6 (1 0 th C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ) . W e c o n d u c t a t wo - s t e p i n q u i r ywh e n d e t e r mi n i n g t h e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i t yo f a t r a ffi c s t o p . F i r s twe
a sk w h e th e r the offi cer’ s act i on w as j ust i fi ed at i t s i ncep t i on . If s o, w e t hen ask
w het hert he r es ul t i ng det ent i on w as r eas onabl yr el at ed i n s cope t o t he ci r cumst ance s t hatj us t i fi ed t he s t op i n t he fi r s t pl ace . See U ni t ed St at es v. T i bbet t s , 396 F. 3d 1132, 1136 ( 10t h C i r . 2005)
. “The val i di t yof a tr affi c s t op undert he Four t h A m endment tur ns on w het hert hi s p ar t i cul aroffi cerhad r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t hatt hi s par t i cul ar
m ot or i s tvi ol at ed anyone of the m ul t i tude of a ppl i cabl e tr aff i c and e qui pm ent
r egul at i ons of t he j ur i s di ct i on. ” I d. at1137 ( i n terna l q u o t at i ons om i t t ed)
. T he5

g o v ern m en t bea rs t h e b u rde n o f p rov ing the r ea so n ab lene ss o f th e o fficer’s
s us pi ci on. U ni t ed St at es v. Sa lzan o , 1 5 8 F. 3d 1107, 1111 ( 10t h C i r . 1998)
. T he detent i on ari si ng from a t raffi c st op do es not becom e un reas on able m erel ybecau se t he o ffi cer as ks qu est i on s unrel at ed to t he ini t i al pu rpose for t he st op , provided those ques t i ons do not unr eas onabl y ext end t he amount of t i m e t he s ubj ecti s del ay ed. See U ni t ed St at es v. A l car az- A r el l ano, 441 F. 3d 1252, 1259 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( ci t at i ons
o m it ted). A. D e fe n d a n t first a rg u e s D e te c tiv e B a x ter d id n o t h a v e re a so n a b le s u sp icio n to st op his veh i cl e. A s no t ed ab ov e, D et ect i ve B axterst op ped D efen dan t ’s car because D efe ndant , w i t houts i gnal i ng, cr os s ed thr ee or four fee t i nt o t he ri ght w es tbound l ane and s t ay ed i n t hatpos it ion for s ever al s econds befor e cr os s i ng back i nt o t he l eft
w es tbound l ane. D et ect i ve B axt er bel i eved D efe ndant ’ s act i ons vi ol at ed C ol o. R ev. St at. § 42- 4- 1007( 1) ( a) , w hi ch pr ovi des “[a ] vehi cl e s hal l be dr i ven as near l yas p ra c tica b le e n tirelyw ith in a sin g le lan e a n d sh a ll n o t b e m o v e d f ro m su c h lan e u n til th e d ri v e r h a s fir s t a s c e rt a in e d th a t s u c h m o v e m e n t c a n b e m a d e w ith s a fe ty.” R el y i ng on U ni t ed S t at es v. G r egory , 79 F. 3d 973 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) , D efe ndant arg u es h is sev era l seco n d d ri ft in to the ri g h t l an e d id n o t j u sti fyD etec ti v e B ax ter’s
s t op. I n G r egor y , w e i nt erpr et ed a U t ah s t atut e verys i m i l art o C ol o. R ev. St at . § 42- 4- 1007( 1) ( a) and hel d, undert he ci r cumst ance s of t hatcase , a d r i ver ’ s br i ef dr i ft out s i de hi s l ane of

t r aff i c i nt o an emer gencyl ane di d no t a m ountt o a vi ol at i on ofT h e U tah s tatu te at i ssu e in G reg o ry , U tah C o d e A n n . § 4 1 -6-6 1 (1), 1 re q u ire d th a t a v e h icle b e o p e ra ted “ a s n e a rlya s p ra c tica l en tirelyw ith in a sin g le l ane . . . . ” 6 U t ah l aw s uffi ci entt o effectuat e a tr aff i c s t op. I d. at 978. Si nce thatt i m e, ourcas es

1 h a v e c lar ified th a t G re g o ryd o e s n o t “s tan d [ ] fo r th e p r o p o sitio n th a t a s in g le i ns t ance of dr i ft i ng ont o t he s houl dercan ne verbe a vi ol at i on of a t r aff i c st atut e l i ke
sec ti o n [4 1 -6-6 1 (1)]. ” U n it ed S tat es v . C li n e, 34 9 F
. 3 d 1 2 7 6 , 1 2 8 7 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ). R a th e r, w e m u st a n a ly z e o bjec tiv e lya ll th e su rro u n d in g fa c ts a n d c irc u m sta n c e s to det er m i ne w het hert he off i cerhad r eas onabl e s us pi cion t hata vi ol at i on of t he appl i cable s t atut e had oc cur r ed. See U ni t ed St at es v. O zbi r n, 189 F. 3d 1194, 1198 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). D efe ndantas s er t s t hi s cas e fa l l s “s quar el yw i t hi n t he bounds of G r egory . ” W e di s agr ee. Severa l fac ts di s t i ngui s h t hi s cas e fr om G r egory . Fi r s t , i n G r egory , t he d e fe n d a n t w a s trav e lin g in a m o v in g tru c k w h e re th e ro a d w a s w in d in g , t h e te r ra in
w as m ount ai nous and t he w eathercondi t i on w as w i ndy
. G r egory , 7 9 F
. 3d at975. A s w e expl ai ned: “U ndert hes e condi t i ons anyvehi cl e coul d be s ubj ectt o an i s ol at ed i nci dentof m ovi ng into the r i ghts houl derof t he r oadw ay , w i t houtgi vi ng ri se to su sp ici o n o f c ri m inal ac tiv ity
. ” Id
. In th is case , n o thing in the rec o rd
s ugges t s any out s i de fact or s cont r i but ed t o D efe ndant ’ s l ane dr i ft
. See U ni t ed St at es
v. A l var ado, 430 F. 3d 1305, 1309 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( not i ng t he l ack of anyobj ect i ve fa c to r w h ich m ig h t h a v e m a d e it i m p ra c tica l fo r th e d e fe n d a n t to re m a in in a sin g le7

lan e ). In ste a d , the re c o rd is c lea r D e fe n d a n t w a s tra v e li n g a lo n g a fo u r-la n e c ity stre e t. A ddi t i onal l y , t he movem entof t he vehi cl e i n G r egoryoccurr ed t ow ar d t he
r i ghts houl derof the r oad, s o ot hert r aff i c w as i n no danger of col l i s i on. I n t hi s cas e, D e fe n d a n t m o v e d h is v e h icle th re e to fo u r fe e t in to a n o th e r la n e o f tra ffic, e ss e n tially
s t r addl i ng t he l ane di vi derfors ever al s econds
. T hi s m o v em en t i s m or e s i gni fi cant t han t he br i ef tw o- fee tl ane dr i ftunderw i ndycondi t i ons des cr i bed i n G r egory . See G r egory , 79 F. 3d at975- 76. D et ect i ve B axt ercoul d have r eas onabl ybel i eved De fe n d a n t ’ s a c t i o n s i n t h i s c a s e p o s e d a s e r i o u s r i s k o f c o l l i s i o n . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we concl ude D et ect i ve B axt er h ad re as onabl e s us pi ci on t o bel i eve D efe ndantvi ol at ed t he C ol or ado Tra ffi c C ode, t hus j us t i fy i ng t he i ni t i al s top o f D efendant ’ s vehi cl e. See i d. ( uphol di ng t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s d eni al of a mot i on t o s uppr es s w her e t he d efen d an t dri fted ap p rox im atelyo n e fo o t ou t of h is l an e fo r sev era l seco n d s). B. D efe ndantal s o ar gues D et ect i ve B axt er ’ s ques t i oni ng r egar di ng t he pr es ence
o f w e a p o n s “ o r o th e r illeg a l it e m s” a n d h is re q u e st to se a rc h D e fe n d a n t’s v e h icle
un reaso n a b l yextended t he d et enti on i n v i olat i on of h i s Fo urt h A m end m ent r i gh t s. W e b eg in o u r an aly sis of D e fe n d an t’ s alt ern ati v e a rgu m en t w ith D etec ti v e B ax ter’s fi r s tq u e s t i o n : “ Do y o u h a v e a n y w eapons or o t h e ri l l e g a l i t e ms i n y o u rv e h i c l e ?” For s ever al y ear s t he rul e i n t hi s ci r cui t has been pol i ce offi cer s ar e fr ee t o ques t i on i ndi vi dual s r egar di ng t he pre s ence of w eapons . See U ni t ed St at es v. H ol t , 264 F. 3d8

1215 ( 10t h C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ) (en banc)
. T he j us t i fi cat i on fort hi s rul e i s r oot ed i n offi cer
s afe t y . See i d. at 1226 ( not i ng “t he governm ent ’ s i nt er es ti n offi cers afe t yout w ei ghs
a m o tori st’ s interest i n n o t bein g ask ed ab o u t th e p rese n ce o f lo ad ed w ea p o n s. ”). T hus , t he fi r s t par t of D et ect i ve B axt er ’ s ques t i on r egar di ng t he pr es ence of w eapons
w as per m i s s i bl e, i f notadvi s abl e. R ecent precedent i nfo rm s u s that t he seco nd po rt i on of D et ect i ve B axter ’s fi rs t ques t i on, i
. e. , w het her “o ther i l l egal i t ems” w er e i n t he ca r , w as al s o per m i s s i bl e. I n A l car az- A r el l ano, w e rul ed t hatoffi cer s m ayas k ques t i ons out s i de the s cope of t he t r aff i c s t op s o l ong as t he ques t i ons do notappr eci abl ypr ol ong t he l ength of t he stop . S ee A lcaraz -A rell an o , 4 4 1 F
. 3 d at 12 5 9
. D efen d an t argu es D etec ti v e B ax ter’s q u e stio n in g p ro lo n g e d th e len g th o f th e sto p b e c a u se D e tec tiv e B a x ter a lleg e d ly abandone d i nves t i gat i on of t he t r aff i c offens e and i m m edi at el y ask ed D efe ndant q u e stio n s u n re late d to th e tra ffic in f ra c tio n . In o th e r w o rd s, a c c o rd in g to D e fe n d a n t, D et ect i ve B axt erw as onl yperm it t ed t o as k ques t i ons unr el at ed t o t he tr aff i c s t op
w hi l e he w as w r i t i ng outa t i cket , w ai t i ng fordi s pat ch, orconduct i ng s om e ot her i nves t i gat i ve pr ocedur e r el at ed t o t he i ni t i al purpos e of the s t op. W e do notbel i eve ourpr ece dent r equi r es s uch a na r r ow appr oach. O urcas es do no tfocu s on the order of even t s. R at her, ou r cas es fo c u s o n the reasonab l eness of t he t r aff

i c s t op i n l i ght of bot h t he l ength of t he det ent i on and t he m anneri n w hi ch i tw as carr i ed out
. See i d. at1 2 5 8
. I n t hi s cas e, D et ect i ve B axt er ’ s ques t i on
r egar di ng t he pr es ence of ot her“i l l egal it ems” di d notappr eci abl yl engthen t he9

dur at i on of t he s t op. T he off i cer ’ s i nqui r yr equi r ed a si m pl e y es orno ans w erand
cou l d n o t h a v e t a k e n mor e t h a n t wo o r th r e e s e c o n d s t o a s k
. Th a t Det e c t i v e B axt er di d notas k t he ques t i on w hi l e ac t i vel y pr oces s i ng D efe ndant ’ s t r aff i c i nfr act i on does notr enderD efe ndant ’ s m om ent ar ydet ent i on unr eas onabl e. D e t ect i ve B axter ’s second qu est i on , “m ayI s earch, ” al so did not v io late Defe n d a n t ’ s Fo u r th Am e n d me n t r i g h t s . Aga i n , t h e k e y i n q u i r y i s w het her D efe ndant ’ s det ent i on w as r eas onabl e. Pat t er s on, 472 F. 3d at 776. D et ect i ve B axt er
as ked forcons entt o s ear ch t he vehi cl e as a fol l ow - up ques t i on t o hi s or i gi nal ques t i on r egar di ng t he pr es ence of w eapons orot heri ll egal i t ems i n t he vehi cl e. B eca us e D efe ndantans w er ed t he fi r s tques t i on w i t h t he equi v o ca l resp ons e of “ not t hatI know of, ” and b ec au s e t he pos s i bl e pr es ence of w eapons i n t he vehi cl e pos ed an i m m edi at e dange r , D et ect i ve B axt er r eas onabl y as ked w hetherhe coul d s ear ch t he vehi cl e. I ndeed, D efe ndant ’ s equi vocal r es pons e t o D et ect i ve B axt er ’ s fi r s tques t i on engende r s t he no ti o n that w eapons m aybe i n t he vehi cl e butD efe ndantdoes not
n e c e s s a r i l y k n o w o f

a n y. W e have r epea t edl ypoi nt ed outt he G overnm ent ’ s s t r ong i nt er es ti n offi cer
s afe t y . A s w e no ted in H o lt , 264 F. 3d at1221, a mot or i s texpec t s an off i cert o t ake

“ r e a s o n a b l e me a s u r e s t o p r o t e c to ffi c e rs a fe t yd u r i n g [ a tr a ffi c s t o p ]
. ” I n Ho l t , we out l i ned t he ri s k of danger fac ed by pol i ce offi cer s conduct i ng t r aff i c st ops and not ed beca us e of thi s r i s k, offi cer s ar e gi ven “w ide l at i tude t o di s cern t he thr eat[a]
m o tori st m ayp o se to o fficer safety . ” Id
. at 12 2 3 (cit ati o n s an d q u o tat ion s o m itted).A s a fi nal not e, w e poi ntoutt hatt he fa ctD et ect i ve B axt eras ked for 2 cons entt o s ear ch t he ca ri ns t ead of s om e otherques t i on i s i r r el evant . A l car azA rel l ano m akes cl ear that the co ntentof an offi cer’ s quest i on s i s unim po rt ant s o l ong as t he ques t i ons do notunr eas onabl ydel ayt he s t op. W e coul d nothave be en m or e cl earw hen w e hel d t hatques t i oni ng “r egar dl es s of t he t opi c” doe s not v io la te th e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t s o lo n g a s it d o e s n o t p ro lo n g th e d e te n tio n . A l car az- A r el l ano, 441 F. 3d at1259. 10 G i ven D efe ndant ’ s ans w er t o D et ect i ve B axt er ’ s fi r s tques t i on and t he i m por t ance of off i cers afe t y , D et ect i ve B axt er ’ s r eques tt o sear ch the vehi cl e forw eapons undoubt edl yw as r eas onabl e. T he li ne o f cases D efend ant ci t es i n h i s bri ef co ncerni ng an o ffi cer’ s r equ est forcons entt o s ear ch a ve hi cl e befor e the off i cerr etur ns the d ri ver ’ s l i cens e,
r egi s t r at i on, and i ns ur ance i nfor m at i on does not al t er t he out come of t hi s cas e. S ee e.g., U n it ed S tat es v . G u errero -E sp ino za , 4 6 2 F
. 3 d 1 3 0 2 , 1 3 0 9 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ). T hes e ca s es s i m pl ys tand fo r th e pr opos i t i on t hatdur i ng a “r out i ne tr aff i c s t op, an offi cer ’ s r et ent i on of a defe ndant ’ s document s i s s i gni fi cantbeca us e i ti ndi cat es t hat t he defendant , as a gene r al rul e, di d notr eas onabl yfee l fr ee t o te r m i nat e the
e n c o u n ter a n d , the re fo re , the g o v e rn m e n t ca n n o t re lyo n th e d e fe n d a n t’s c o n se n t to j us t i fyfu rt herdet ent i on, ques t i oni ng, ora s ear ch. ” I d. ( ci t at i ons and quot at i ons
om i t t ed)
. T he val i di t yof D efen d ant ’ s cons entt o s ear ch i s notati s s ue i n t hi s cas e. 2 AF F I RMED
.