1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 12-3604

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

TYRONE DAVID ROBINSON,

 Appellant

_____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(M.D. Pa. No. 1-11-cr-00007-001)

District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner

_____________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

May 6, 2013

Before: SLOVITER, FUENTES, and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: July 2, 2013)

_____________

OPINION OF THE COURT

_____________

FUENTES, Circuit Judge

Tyrone David Robinson challenges his conviction for possession with intent to 

distribute 100 grams or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(i), 

and 18 U.S.C. § 2. On appeal, Robinson argues that the District Court erred in failing to 
2

suppress 457 grams of heroin found in the trunk of his car. For the reasons that follow, 

we will affirm the District Court’s denial of the Motion to Suppress.

I.

On the morning of December 8, 2010, Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Justin 

Hope was traveling westbound in an unmarked state police car on the Pennsylvania 

Turnpike, in West Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Hope used 

his speedometer to clock a gold Jeep Cherokee traveling at seventy-seven miles per hour

in a fifty-five mile per hour construction zone. After following the Jeep for some 

distance, Hope pulled the vehicle over and conducted a traffic stop. Hope then instructed 

Robinson to pull into a larger parking area approximately fifty feet ahead.

Hope informed Robinson that he had been pulled over for speeding through a 

construction zone, and requested a driver’s license and registration. Robinson produced 

the requested documents, all of which were valid. However, Hope noticed that the 

registration was in a third party’s name, and that Robinson’s license was issued in 

Pennsylvania, while the Jeep’s registration and license plates were issued in New Jersey. 

Robinson explained that his girlfriend owned the Jeep, and he was borrowing the car to 

pick up his three children in Pennsylvania and bring them back to New Jersey. Hope 

became suspicious of Robinson’s travel plans when he was informed that one child was 

eleven years old, because an eleven-year old child typically would be attending school on 

a Wednesday. At this time, Hope also sensed a strong odor emanating from multiple

pink air fresheners that were hanging from the Jeep’s rearview mirror. He also noticed 

two cellular phones sitting on the center console.
3

Hope returned to his car to perform a license and registration check, and to inquire 

about outstanding warrants and criminal history. The checks revealed that Robinson had 

a criminal history in New Jersey and in New York, which included three prior arrests, 

two for controlled substance violations, and one for aggravated assault and possession of 

a firearm. 

Hope later testified that based on his experience,

1

there were several circumstances

making him suspect that Robinson could be involved in some criminal activity. He noted

that: 1) the Pennsylvania Turnpike was a drug trafficking corridor; 2) Robinson’s choice 

to pull over on the narrow shoulder was a tactic often used to create an unsafe situation 

for the officer, to ensure that a traffic stop will be relatively short; 3) Robinson’s travel 

plans were unusual; 4) air fresheners were often used by individuals attempting to mask 

the smell of illegal drugs; 5) borrowed vehicles were used by drug traffickers, to make 

the seizure of a vehicle more difficult; 6) the possession of multiple cell phones was 

characteristic of drug traffickers; and 7) Robinson had a criminal history. 

After receiving the information regarding Robinson’s criminal history, Hope 

called for backup and a K-9 unit, requesting that the unit remain nearby in case it was 

needed. Corporal Greg Miller arrived at the scene approximately twenty minutes later

(about thirty minutes after the initial traffic stop). Miller and Hope approached the Jeep, 

 

1 Hope had been a Pennsylvania State Police Trooper for nine years, and an Intelligence 

Officer for approximately two of those years. As an Intelligence Officer, Hope had 

criminal interdiction duties, which involved engaging motorists likely involved in 

criminal activity, including the trafficking of narcotics, guns, etc. Throughout the course 

of his career as an Intelligence Officer, Hope had been involved in approximately 70 

stops that involved narcotics trafficking. 
4

and Hope questioned Robinson further while Miller stood by the passenger-side window. 

Hope returned to his car to complete some paperwork, then returned to the Jeep and

asked Robinson to accompany him to the rear of the Jeep, where Hope informed 

Robinson that he would receive a warning for speeding. Hope issued Robinson the 

warning, returned Robinson’s documents, and informed him that he was free to leave.

As Robinson was walking back towards the Jeep, Hope called out to him, and 

asked him if he would be willing to answer more questions. Robinson returned to the 

rear of the Jeep to speak with Hope. While the two were conversing, Hope asked 

Robinson for permission to search the Jeep, which Robinson declined. Hope informed 

Robinson that he was aware of Robinson’s criminal history, but Robinson denied having

any prior arrests. Hope then allowed Robinson to look at the computer screen showing 

his criminal history, but Robinson continued to deny that he had ever been arrested. 

Hope asked Robinson to search the Jeep once more, and Robison again declined.

Hope did not allow Robinson to leave, but instead radioed the K-9 unit and 

requested that it come to the scene to perform an exterior sniff of Robinson’s car. The K9 unit arrived ten minutes later, approximately fifty-five minutes after the initial traffic

stop. The dog sniffed the exterior of Robinson’s car and signaled the presence of 

controlled substances. Robinson was placed under arrest, and the officers impounded the 

Jeep until they could obtain a search warrant. After obtaining the warrant, the officers

located approximately 457 grams of heroin behind the Jeep’s two front seats, and $1,030

cash.
5

A grand jury in the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued a one-count indictment 

charging Robinson with possession with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin. 

Robinson filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence, and on March 15, 2011, the District Court 

conducted a hearing. In a written opinion, the District Court denied Robinson’s Motion 

to Suppress, finding that the length and nature of the traffic stop did not result in an 

unconstitutional seizure, and that Hope had reasonable suspicion to warrant an 

investigative detention. Robinson subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea to the 

sole count of the indictment. He was later sentenced to 132 months’ imprisonment. On 

appeal, Robinson contends that the District Court erred in failing to suppress evidence 

seized during a search incident to a traffic stop. 2

II.

Robinson does not contest the validity of the initial traffic stop. Instead, he argues 

that the stop was one continuous encounter, the length and nature of which was 

unreasonable and resulted in an unconstitutional seizure.

3

 In the alternative, Robinson 

argues that if there were two separate stops, Hope had no reasonable suspicion to justify

the second stop. In this case, it is unnecessary for us to determine whether there were 

two separate stops. As long as Hope had reasonable suspicion to justify expanding the 

 

2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The District Court 

had jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We review “the District 

Court’s denial of a motion to suppress for clear error as to the underlying factual findings 

and exercise[] plenary review of the District Court’s application of the law to those 

facts.” United States v. Perez, 280 F.3d 318, 336 (3d Cir. 2002).

3

The Government argues that the initial traffic stop ended when Hope returned 

Robinson’s license and registration, and a voluntary encounter began when Robinson 

returned to the rear of the Jeep to answer Hope’s additional questions.
6

scope of the initial traffic stop, it is irrelevant whether Robinson felt free to leave after his 

license and other documents were returned. See United States v. Givan, 320 F.3d 452, 

458 (3d Cir. 2003) (finding that an officer had reasonable suspicion to justify extending 

the scope of the original traffic stop, even after he returned the driver’s documents and 

told him he was free to leave). Therefore, we will analyze Robinson’s detainment as one 

stop. 

After a valid traffic stop, “an officer who develops a reasonable, articulable 

suspicion of criminal activity may expand the scope of an inquiry beyond the reason for 

the stop and detain the vehicle and its occupants for further investigation.” Id. at 458

(internal citations omitted). Whereas “reasonable suspicion” must be more than an 

“inchoate hunch,” the officer is merely required to “articulate some minimal, objective 

justification for an investigatory stop.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). To 

determine whether an officer had the basis for reasonable suspicion, a reviewing court 

must consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the officer’s investigation. 

Id. Under this test, great deference is given to an officer’s knowledge of the “nature and 

the nuances” surrounding the type of criminal activity of which he was suspicious, and 

his prior experience regarding this criminal activity. Id. (citing United States v. Nelson, 

284 F.3d 472, 482 (3d Cir. 2002)). While each factor cited by the officer may appear

innocent when viewed in isolation, courts are not permitted to analyze factors

individually, as innocent factors taken together may appear suspicious to an experienced 

officer. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22 (1968).
7

A stop that was initially justified by reasonable suspicion may still violate the 

Fourth Amendment if it is unreasonable in scope or length. Id. at 18. There is no rigid 

time limit on the duration of the stop; the inquiry involves the nature of the officer’s 

actions during his investigation. United States v. Leal, 235 Fed. App’x 937, 941 (citing 

United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 676 (1985)). Therefore, an officer must have

“diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel [his]

suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant.” Sharpe, 

470 U.S. at 685. 

In this case, the initial delay caused by the computer checks conducted by Hope 

was justified as part of his investigation of Robinson’s speeding violation. See U.S. v. 

Pack, 612 F.3d 341, 350 (5th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n officer may examine driver’s licenses and 

vehicle registrations and run computer checks as part of his investigation of the 

circumstances that originally caused the stop.”). Hope decided to radio for backup after 

discovering Robinson’s criminal history. He was concerned for his own safety, and 

suspicious that Robinson might have been trafficking drugs. At this point, Hope had 

reasonable and articulable suspicion that Robinson was engaged in criminal activity, 

justifying the expansion of the scope of his investigation beyond Robinson’s speeding 

violation. The factors contributing to Hope’s suspicion were: 1) the prevalence of drugtrafficking along the Pennsylvania Turnpike; 2) the unusual manner in which Robinson 

stopped his Jeep; 3) a strong odor from the significant number of air fresheners in the 

Jeep; 4) multiple cell phones on the Jeep’s center console; 5) discrepancies between the 

state in which Robinson’s license was issued and the state in which the Jeep was 
8

registered; 6) the Jeep’s third-party ownership; 7) the unusual explanation of Robinson’s 

travel plans; 8) Robinson’s criminal history; and 9) Robinson’s denial of his criminal 

history. 

Taken together and in light of Hope’s experience in narcotics interdiction, these 

circumstances provided Hope with a reasonable basis for expanding the scope of the 

initial traffic stop through additional questioning and the K-9 sniff. See Givan, 320 F.3d 

at 458 (finding that an officer had reasonable suspicion when he observed that an 

individual was speeding, operating a vehicle that belonged to a third party, had unusual 

travel plans, and was using a route often used for transporting drugs). 

The question remains whether Hope “diligently pursued a means of investigation 

that was likely to confirm or dispel [his] suspicions quickly.” Sharpe, 470 U.S. at 686. 

Hope’s investigation began when he discovered Robinson had a criminal history, and 

decided to radio for backup. Although the checks he performed to investigate Robinson’s 

criminal history took “longer than expected,” the delay was caused by circumstances 

beyond Hope’s control, not by his own unreasonable actions.4 See Leal, 235 Fed. App’x 

at 942 (finding that an officer’s investigation was reasonable despite an 80-minute delay, 

because he was diligent in his attempts to investigate his suspicions, but was frustrated by 

 

4 At the suppression hearing conducted by the District Court, Hope testified that the New 

Jersey criminal history report took longer than expected because Hope could not run 

Robinson’s identification number from his car, and he was required to call dispatch in 

Harrisburg. Further, the dispatcher in Harrisburg had difficulty finding any record of 

Robinson’s New Jersey criminal history, so Hope was required to radio PACIC (the 

Pennsylvania Intelligence Center in Harrisburg), EPIC (the El Paso Intelligence Center), 

and MANIX (another intelligence agency within the state of Pennsylvania).
9

circumstances beyond his control). For the same reasons, Hope was also justified in 

waiting twenty minutes for backup. Once backup arrived, Hope proceeded to conduct an 

investigation that was designed to quickly determine whether Robinson was involved in 

criminal activity: he briefly questioned Robinson about his travel plans, conducted a 

physical pat-down search, and called Robinson to the back of his car to answer additional 

questions about weapons—all actions designed to obtain information about criminal 

activity. Further, Hope called ahead to the K-9 unit, and requested it to stand by, 

ensuring that it would arrive quickly if needed. Shortly after it did, the dog alerted to the 

presence of controlled substances in the Jeep, confirming Hope’s suspicions. 

In light of the circumstances discussed above, Hope’s investigation was 

reasonable in scope and length. Thus, we agree with the District Court’s decision to 

deny Robinson’s Motion to Suppress.

III.

Accordingly, we will affirm the Order of the District Court.