T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of * law o f th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, f o r its p e r s u a s i v e v a l u e c o n s i s t e n twi th F e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 2 . 1 ( e f f. De c . 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) a n d 1 0 th Ci r . R. 3 2 . 1 (ef f. Jan 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### D e c e m b e r 12, 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 , P la in tif f -A p p e lle e , v. $ 4 9 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 i n UN I TED STATES C U R R E N C Y , M ore or L ess, D e f e n d a n t, T I M OT HY L E WI S HE F F E RN AN, C laim a n t-A p p e llan t N o. 05- 3253 ( D. C. No . 0 2 - 1 4 2 6 - W EB)

OR DER AND J UDGM EN T *
B efor e LU CE RO , C ir c u it J u d g e , Mc WI L L I A MS , Seni orC i r cui tJ udge, and EBEL , C i r cui tJ udge. O n N o v em b er 2 7 , 2 0 0 2 , the U n it ed S tat es f il ed in the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe D i s tr i ctof K ans as a C om pl ai ntforFor fei tur e I n R em agai ns t$49, 000. 00 U ni t ed2 1 U . S . C . §8 81 (a) reads as fol l ow s: 1 §881. For fei tur es (a ) S u b jec t p ro p e rty T he fol l ow i ng s hal l be s ubj ectt o for fei tur e t o the U ni t ed St at es and n o p r o p e r tyr i g h ts h a l l e x i s ti n th e m: (1 ) A ll c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e s w h ic h h a v e b e e n m a n u f a c tu re d , d istri b u ted, disp en sed , o r ac q u ir ed in v iolati o n o f th is sub ch ap ter. * * * * * ( 6) A l l m oney s , negot i abl e i ns trum ent s , s ecur i t i es , orother thi ngs of val ue furni s hed ori nt ended t o be furni s hed byanyper s on i n excha nge fora contr ol l ed s ubs t ance orl i s t ed che m i cal i n vi ol atio n o f th is s u b c h a p te r, a ll p ro c e e d s tr a c e a b le to s u c h a n e x c h a n g e , and al l m oney s , negot i abl e i ns trum ent s , and s ecur i t i es us ed ori nt ended to b e u sed to f

ac il it ate a n yv iolati o n o f th is sub ch ap ter.

- 2 - St at es C urr ency , M or e orL es s , pur s uantt o 21 U . S. C . § 881( a) ( 6) . I n s uppor tof that 1 compl ai nt , a D ecl ar at i on of one M i chae l D . K ees l i ng, a Task For ce A gentof the D rug E n f o rc e m e n t A d m in istra tio n , w a s a ttac h e d . O n M a rc h 1 7 , 2 0 0 3 , T im o th yL e w is H eff ernan ( the appe l l ant ) fi l ed a V er i fi ed C l ai m i n the for fei tur e pr ocee di ng, w her ei n he cl ai m ed “a n ow ner s hi p and/ ora pos s es s oryi nt er es ti n, and the r i ghtt o exer ci s e domi ni on and contr ol over , al l orpartof the def endantpr operty . ” H e al s o fi l ed an a ns w ert o the G o v e rn m e n t ’ s C o m p l a i n tf o rF o r f e i tu r e I n R e m , c o u p l e d w i th a d e m a n d f o rtr i a l b y j u r y. O n Jun e 9, 20 03 , the ap pell ant fi l ed in the d i stri ctcou rta m oti on t o sup press , a sk in g f o r a n “ o rd e r su p p re ss in g a ll ev id e n c e o b tain e d d u rin g a tra f f ic s to p o f

h is v e h icle w hi ch occ urr ed on 30 J ul y2002 and fora furtheror derdi s m i s s i ng thi s cas e and r etur ni ng the def endantpr opertyt o C l ai m ant . ” I n s uppor tof the mot i on t o s uppr es s , couns el a ttac h e d a d e c lar a tio n o f th e a p p e llan t. In d u e tim e , the U n ited S tate s f iled a re sp o n se to- 3 -

cl ai m ant ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s and t o di s m i s s . A ft eran evi dent i aryhear i ng hel d on N ovember18, 2003 ( a tr ans cr i ptof the evi dence adduce d atthathear i ng i s nota partof the r ecor d on appea l ) , the di s tr i ctcourtent er ed a 15- page mem or andum and or der( w hi ch is a p a rt o f

th e re c o rd o n a p p e a l), i n w h ich it d e n ied a p p e llan t’s m o tio n to su p p re ss a n d to di s m i s s , and s etfor th i t s r eas ons ther efor . O n J une 17, 2005, pur s uantt o an agr eement betw een the governm entand appe l l ant , the di s tr i ctcourtent er ed a Fi nal O r derof For fei tur e, “for fei t i ng defe ndant[$49, 000. 00] t o the U ni t ed St at es ” butr es ervi ng the r i ght of the appe l l antt o appea l the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derdeny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s . T he a p p e llan t th e n f

iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l. FACTS O n Ju ly3 0 , 2 0 0 2 , the a p p e llan t, w h ile d riv in g w e st o n In ter sta te 7 0 in E lli s C ounty , K ans as , w as s t opped atorabout3: 45 p. m . byone J ohn D . R ul e, a Troope rfort he K a n s a s H ig h w a yP a tr o l ( K H P ), f o r a tr a f f ic v io la tio n , i.e . f

a ilu re to m a in ta in a s in g le la n e . T r ooperR ul e had be en a K H P T r oopers i nce 1991, a dog handl ers i nce 1997, and a drug dog i ns truct ors i nce 2001. T r ooperR ul e w as al s o tr ai ned i n cr i m i nal i nt er di ct i on t echni ques and w as as s i gned t o cr i m i nal i nt er di ct i on dut i es , w hi ch typi cal l yi nvol ved r e s p o n d i n g t o r e q u e s t s f r o m o th e ro f

f i c e r s i n th e a r e a f

o ra n a r c o t i c s d e t e c t i o n c a n i n e . At the t i m e of the s uppr es s i on hear i ng, T r ooperR ul e had be en i nvol ved i n s om e 400 s ocal l ed “l ar ge drug s ei zur e” c as es w her ei n 230 of thos e s ei zur es r es ul t ed i n the s ei zur e of o v e r 2 0 ,0 0 0 p o u n d s o f

c o n tro lled su b sta n c e s. T ro o p e r R u le h a d a lso b e e n in v o lv e d in curr encys ei zur es fordrugs s ol d and del i ver ed t ot al i ng over$4, 000, 000. 00, hal f of w hi ch- 4 -

had bee n actual l ys ei zed byhi m . I n thi s gener al r egar d, the di s tr i ctcourtopi ned that T r ooperR ul e had “ ext ens i ve expe r i ence i nves t i gat i ng drug tr aff i cki ng. ” The di s tr i ct co u rtfo u n d that T roo p er R u le also k n ew that I-70 w as f req u en tl yu sed b yd rug sm u g g lers to tra n sp o rt d ru g s f

ro m th e so u th w e ste rn U n ited S tate s to n o rth e a ste rn sta tes , as w e ll as to ther eaf t ertr ans portthe pr ocee ds fr om drug tr aff i cki ng back t o the s outhw es t . H e furt her k n e w th a t p e rso n s in v o lv e d in d ru g tra f f ick in g o n o c c a sio n w o u ld tra v e l o n e -w a yb ya ir to thei rdes t i nat i on, then r enta vehi cl e forthe r eturn tr i p i n or dert o tr ans por tthe drugs by ai r , and br i ng the drug pr ocee ds back byaut o, even though s uch w as m or e expe ns i ve than g o ing rou n d -tri p b yair. A s s tate d , T ro o p e r R u le s to p p e d th e v e h icle d riv e n b ya p p e llan t o n I-7 0 in E lli s C ounty , K ans as , fora l ane vi ol at i on. A ppel l antw as the onl yone i n the ca r . T he ens ui ng det ent i on w as of a r el at i vel ys hor tdur at i on, es t i m at ed t o have be en aboutfi ve t o t en m i nut es fr om the t i m e of the s t op t o the t i m e Troope rR ul e s ear ched the trunk of appel l ant ’ s carand s ei zed the curr ency . A ft erthe i ni t i al s t op, T r ooperR ul e fi r s tas ked app el l ant for hi s dri ver’ s l i cense an d ap pell ant pr od uced a vali d C al i forni a dri ver’ s l i cense a n d a v a lid re n tal c o n tra c t in h is n a m e f o r th e c a r h e w a s d riv in g . W h e n T ro o p e r R u le not ed thatthe r ent al contr acti ndi cat ed the ca rw as t o be r eturned i n D etr oi t , w her e i tw as re n ted , rath e r th a n L o s A n g e les w h e re a p p e llan t re sid e d , ap p e llan t h e sita ted a n d sa id it “musthave be en a mi s t ake. ” I n r es pons e t o i nqui rybyT r ooperR ul e, appel l ants ai d he had fl ow n t o D etr oi tt o att end a f r i end’ s w eddi ng and dec i ded t o r enta ca rand dr i ve bac k t o L os A ngel es and enj oythe s cene ryen r out e home. T r ooperR ul e s ai d the appe l l ant- 5 -

a p p e a re d “ m o re n e rv o u s” th a n a p e rso n o n a “ typ ica l traf f ic s to p ,” a s w a s in d ica ted b yh is “s haki ng hands . ” Tr o o p e rRu l e th e n r e tu r n e d t o h i s v e h i c l e t o wr i t e a wa rn i n g t i c k e t , a twh i c h t i me he r adi oed K H P fora cr i m i nal hi s t orychec k on appel l antand w as i nform ed thatthe a p p e l l a n th a d a p r i o ra r r e s tf o rp o s s e s s i o n o f

ma r i j u a n a wi th a n i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e . At a b o u t th a t p o in t in tim e , T ro o p e r R u le d e c id e d h e w o u ld f irst a sk a p p e llan t f

o r c o n se n t to s ear ch hi s aut om obi l e and i f the r eques tw as deni ed, he w oul d then conduc ta “dog s ni ff” w ith h is do g “B u tku s, ” w h ich w as in the p atrol ca r. A s h e w as re turn ing ap p ell an t’ s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e and c arr ent al agr eement , t ogetherw i th a w arni ng t i cket , T r ooperR ul e as ked i f appe l l antw oul d ans w era fe w m or e ques t i ons . A ppel l antr epl i ed “oka y , ” and T rooper R ule then asked a pp el l ant i f he h ad an ydrugs, w eapo ns or l arge am ou nts of ca sh i n the vehi cl e. A ppel l ants ai d t her e w er e none. T r ooperR ul e then as ked forperm i s s i on t o l ook i n t he vehi cl e, butappel l antdecl i ned. T r ooperR ul e then t ol d the appe l l antthathe w a s g o in g to “ w o rk ” h is d o g a ro u n d th e c a r, an d d ire c ted th e a p p e llan t to ste p o u t o f h is vehi cl e. A s conce r ns B ut kus , T r ooperR ul e s t at ed thatB ut kus ’ s ucce s s r at e i n drug d e t e c t i o n w a s o v e r9 0 %. B u tku s w o rke d aro u n d ap p ell an t’ s ca r an d then “a lert ed ” to th e trun k o f a p p ell an t’ s car , i ndi cat i ng t o T r ooperR ul e the odorof a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance . T r ooperR ul e then to o k B u tk u s b a c k to th e p a tro l ca r a n d , retu rn in g to a p p e llan t’s c a r, th e n a sk e d a p p e llan t if he had a nydrugs i n t he ca r . A ppel l ants ai d he di d not . T r ooperR ul e then obt ai ned the key s fr om appel l antand opene d t he trunk t o hi s vehi cl e. A ft era br i ef s ear ch of the trunk,- 6 -

T r ooperR ul e found “ a bag be hi nd the ca rpetl i ni ng thatcont ai ned vac uum - s eal ed packa ges of U . S. curr encyt ot al i ng $49, 000. 00. ” W hen as ked aboutthe money , appel l ant hes i t at ed i ni t i al l y , buts ai d t he moneyw as hi s and thathe “made the moneys el l i ng car s . ” I n thi s connec t i on, appel l ants t at ed thathe had t aken the $49, 000. 00 i n cas h w i th hi m on hi s fl i ghtfr om L os A ngel es t o D etr oi tbeca us e he di dn’ tw antt o l eave the moneyat h o m e , an d b e c a u se h e th o u g h t h e m ig h t b u ya c a r in D e tro it. DI S CU S S I ON Init ial ly , there w as a su g g esti o n that T roo p er R u le’s “stop ” o f th e a p p ell an t’ s vehi cl e w as pr et extual . H ow ever , thatm att eri s notan i s s ue on appe al , i . e. , i ti s now c o n c e d e d th a t th e sto p o f a p p e llan t d id n o t o f

f e n d a p p e llan t’s F o u rth A m e n d m e n t rig h t to b e f re e o f “ u n re a so n a b le s e a rc h e s a n d se izu re s.” S u c h b e in g th e c a se , itis w e ll e sta b lish e d th a t f

o llo w in g a law f

u l sto p o f

a m o to rist o n a p u b lic h ig h w a yf o r a tra f f ic vi ol at i on, the off

i cerm aki ng the s t op m aydet ai n the dr i verand che ck hi s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e, carr egi s tr at i on orr ent al agr eement , i f any , and gene r al l yi nqui r e aboutthe dr i ver ’ s tr avel pl ans . T hi s w as done i n t he i ns t antcas e. T he off i certhen r eturned t o hi s patr ol carand, as he w as pr epar i ng a w arni ng t i cket , r an a c r i m i nal hi s t orychec k on the dr i ver . Such a lso d o e s n o t co n stitu te a “ d e ten tio n ” f o r F o u rth A m e n d m e n t p u rp o se s. T ro o p e r R u le th e n re tu rn e d to a p p e llan t’s a u to m o b ile a n d in q u ire d a s to w h e th e r a p p e llan t w o u ld ans w era fe w m or e ques t i ons . A ppel l antans w er ed “oka y . ” Thus, thei r“enc ount er ” then beca m e “c ons ens ual , ” and ther e s t i l l w as no “det ent i on. ” W hen Troope rR ul e as ked a p p e llan t w h e th e r h e c o u ld lo o k in a p p e llan t’s v e h icle , ap p e llan t sa id “ n o .” A c c o rd in g to- 7 -

c o u n se l, th a t w a s th e p o in t in tim e w h e n a p p e llan t w a s u n law f u lly“ d e tain e d ” f

o r F o u rth A m endmentpurpos es . A s the di s tr i ctcourtnot ed, i tther eaf t ert ook aboutthr ee mi nut es befor e Troope rR ul e gotB ut kus fr om hi s car , w or ked B ut kus ar ound appel l ant ’ s carand the dog al ert ed t o t he trunk ar ea. A tthi s poi nt , as w e under s t and i t , couns el agr ees that T r ooperR ul e had pr obabl e ca us e t o s ear ch the trunk. T hus the pr eci s e i s s ue on appe al , as f ra m e d b yc o u n se l, i s w h e th e r T ro o p e r R u le h a d re a so n a b le s u sp icio n o f c rim in a l ac tiv ity s uffi ci entt o “det ai n” appe l l antforthr ee mi nut es w hi l e he r an B ut kus ar ound the out s i de of appe l l ant ’ s carand B ut kus al ert ed t o the trunk ar ea. O n the r ecor d, w e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourtthatT r ooperR ul e atthatpoi nti n t i m e di d have a “r eas onabl e s us pi ci on” of c ri m in a l a c tiv ity. C ou nsel fram es the o nlyi ssue i nv olved i n thi s appea l as fol l ow s:

T he s ol e i s s ue pr es ent ed forr evi ew i s w hetherthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n deny i ng C l ai m ant - A ppel l antT i m othy H e f f e rn a n ’s F o u rth A m e n d m e n t M o tio n to S u p p re ss in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e se a rc h o f h is v e h icle a n d th e sc o p e o f h is det ent i on. T he di s tr i ctcourtfound thatthe s ear ch and d e ten tio n w e re ju stif

ied b e c a u se th e re w a s a n o b jec tiv e ly r eas onabl e s us pi ci on of i l l egal act i vi tyj us t i fy i ng a pr ol onged d e ten tio n a f

ter a ro u tin e sto p o f

A p p e llan t. A s p re v io u s ly sta te d , th e re w a s s o m e s u g g e s tio n th a t th is w a s a p re te x tu a l s to p . T hati s noti nvol ved i n t he pr es entappea l . Fur ther , once But kus “al ert ed” t o the trunk of a p p e llan t’s c a r, itis a p p a re n tlya g re e d th a t T ro o p e r R u le th e n h a d p ro b a b le c a u se to bel i eve ther e w as “cr i m i nal act i vi ty ” af oot , al though i tcoul d then be a r gued thatthe s e a rc h o f th e tru n k a n d th e s e iz u re o f th e c u rr e n c yw e re th e “ f ru it o f th e p o is o n o u s v in e ,”- 8 -

i . e. the “f

rui t ” of the unl aw ful det ent i on. A l s o, i ti s w el l es t abl i s hed thatw hen a pol i ce offi cers t ops a vehi cl e fora tr aff i c vi ol at i on, the ens ui ng det ent i on forthe purpos e of chec ki ng the dr i ver ’ s l i cens e, aut om obi l e r egi s tr at i on, tr avel pl ans , w r i t i ng a tr aff i c t i cket and r eturni ng i tt o t he dr i veri s a “l aw ful det ent i on. ” So, i n the i ns t antcas e, w hen T r ooperR ul e ca m e bac k t o appel l ant ’ s aut om obi l e w i th a w arni ng t i cket , ther e had be en no “unl aw ful det ent i on. ” W hen Troope rR ul e then as ked appe l l anti f he c oul d as k a fe w m o re q u e s tio n s a n d a p p e lla n t c o n s e n te d th e re to , th e re e n s u e d a “ c o n s e n s u a l” e n c o u n te r. W hen appe l l antans w er ed Troope rR ul e’ s i nqui ryas t o w hetherappel l anthad drugs or m oneyi n hi s carand the l att erans w er ed i n the nega t i ve, ther e s t i l l had bee n no unl aw ful d e ten tio n . T h u s, a n y“ u n law f u l d e ten tio n ” sta rte d w h e n T ro o p e r R u le, re a c tin g to appel l ant ’ s negat i ve ans w ert o hi s r eques tt o “l ook” i n the vehi cl e, det erm i ned t o run B ut kus ar ound the vehi cl e. A nd as not ed, fr om thatpoi nti n t i m e, unt i l B ut kus “al ert ed” to th e tru n k o f

th e c a r, w a s a p p a re n tlya b o u t tw o to th re e m in u tes , ce rta in lyn o t a

“ p ro lo n g e d d e te n tio n .” C ouns el forthe appe l l ants t at es thathi s “r eci t at i on of the fa ct s ” i s bas ed on the f in d in g s m a d e b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt in its d e n ia l o f a p p e lla n t’ s m o tio n to s u p p re s s . A ccordi ng l y , w e t ake thatt o m ean thatcou nsel con cedes t hat the d i stri ctcou rt ’s fi nd i ng s o f f a c t ar e su p p o rte d b ye v id e n c e a d d u c e d a t th e e v id e n tiary he a rin g o n th e m o tio n to s uppr es s , butdi s agr ees w i th t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s concl us i on thats uch fa ct s , as found byt he court , s uppor ti t s ul t i m at e det erm i nat i on thatatthatpoi nti n t i m e, T r ooperR ul e had s uch a r eas onabl e s us pi ci on of cr i m i nal act i vi tyas w oul d j us t i fya br i ef i nves t i gat i ve det ent i on- 9 -

w h ich w o u ld in c lu d e w o rk in g B u tk u s a ro u n d th e e x ter io r o f a p p e llan t’s c a r, an d to o k o n ly three m i nu t es, or l ess. W e s houl d al s o not e thaton appea l , ther e i s no s ugges t i on thatthe $49, 000. 00 f o u n d in th e tru n k a c tu a llyb e lo n g e d to a p p e llan t o r th a t th e c u rre n c yd id n o t co m e w ith in 21 U . S. C . § 881( a) ( 6) as bei ng “money s . . . furni s hed ori nt ended t o be furni s hed byany per s on i n excha nge fora contr ol l ed s ubs t ance . . . . ” The onl yi s s ue i s w hetherthe “s ear ch and s ei zur e” w as the r es ul tof w hatcouns el char act er i zes as a “pr ol onged d e te n tio n ,” w h ic h v io la te d th e “ re a s o n a b le n e s s ” re q u ir e m e n t o f th e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. In th is c o n n e c tio n , w e n o te, a s d id th e d istric t co u rt, th a t T ro o p e r R u le h a d B u tk u s w ith h im at th e sc en e o f th e sto p , to the en d that there w as n o d elayto ca ll in a “ ca n ine s n iffe r” from po l i ce hea dq uart ers . O n ap p ea l, co u n sel’s sole a rgu m en t i s tha t un d er U n ite d S ta te s v . W

o o d , 106 F. 3d 9 4 2 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ), t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in d e n y in g a p p e lla n t’ s m o tio n to s u p p re s s . W ood w a s a c rim in a l ca se , an d it i s c o rre c t th a t in W ood w e, i n r ever s i ng the di s tr i ct cou rt ’s j ud gm ent, held that the co urterr ed in i t s denial of a m oti on t o sup press . Iti s al so corr ectthatthe “f

act s ” i n t he i ns t antcas e ar e qui t e s i m i l art o the fa ct s i n W ood. H o w ev er, th e d istric t co u rt in th e p re se n t ca se c o n c lu d e d , as d o w e , tha t th e re a re a d d iti o n a l f a c ts in the pr es entcas e, notpr es enti n W ood , w hi ch j us t i fi ed the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of appel l ant ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s . L i ke the di s tr i ctcourt , w e ar e i m pr es s ed w i th the tr ai ni ng an d ex p erien ce that T roo p er R u le po sses sed , an d u sed , in the p erf o rm an ce o f h is prim ary p o li ce assig n m en t, w h ich w as in terdicti n g d rug tr af fick ing o n I-70 in w estern K an sas. In- 10 -

thi s connec t i on, the di s tr i ctcourtobs erved thatT r ooperR ul e’ s t es t i m onyw as “bas ed on y ear s of expe r i ence and a mul t i tude of drug s ei zur es , and i ndi cat ed thatcl ai m ant ’ s tr avel arr angementw as outof the or di naryform os tpeopl e butm at ched a r ecurr entm ethod of tr avel us ed bydrug cour i er s . ” The cour tfur thernot ed thatthe fa ct s gi vi ng r i s e t o a “r eas onabl e s us pi ci on” of c r i m i nal act i vi tyneed notrul e outthe pos s i bi l i tyof i nnocent c o n d u c t. U

n ite d S ta te s v . S o ko lo w , 490 U . S. 1, 9 ( 1989)
. A lso , w e w o u ld n o te th a t, unl i ke the pr es entcas e, the off i cerw ho s t opped W ood di d nothave a dog w i th hi m and had t o have the dog br oughtfr om out s i de t o the s cene of the s t op. T he “de t ent i on” i n the instan t case w as sa id to b e o n lytw o to three m inu tes. In W ood , the i l l egal det ent i on w as lon g er, po ssiblym u ch lon g er. It h a s lo n g b e e n th e ru le th a t th e f a c ts o f a g iv e n c a se sh o u ld n o t b e c o n sid e re d in

“ iso latio n ” a n d th a t th e “ to tality ” o f f a c ts a n d c irc u m sta n c e s s h o u ld b e c o n sid e re d in d ec iding w h ethe r an o ff icer h ad su ch “re aso n ab le su sp ici o n ” a s w o u ld justi fya sh o rt det ent i on. Subse quentt o W ood, the Supr eme C our ti n U nited S tates v. A rvi

zu , 53 4 U. S. 266, 273 ( 2002) r eemphas i zed thatr evi ew i ng court s “mustl ook atthe ‘ t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s ’ of ea ch ca s e t o s ee w hetherthe det ai ni ng offi cerhas a ‘ part i cul ar i zed a nd o b jec tiv e b a sis ’ f

o r su sp e c tin g leg a l w ro n g d o in g .” In th is re g a rd , the S u p re m e C o u rt in A r vi z u atpage 274 s t at ed that“[A ] l though eac h of the s er i es of ac t s w as ‘ perhaps in n o c e n t in its e lf

,’ w e h e ld th a t, ta k e n to g e th e r, t h e y‘w a rr a n te d f u rt h e r i n v e s tig a tio n ’,” ci t i ng T e r r y v . O h io , 3 9 2 U . S . 1 , 2 2 (19 6 8 ). I n s um , w e ar e i n acc or d w i th the di s tr i ct ’ s courthol di ng thatthe “t ot al i tyof the- 11 -

ci r cumst ance s ” i n t he pr es entcas e gave r i s e t o s uch a “ r eas onabl e s us pi ci on of cr i m i nal act i vi ty ” as w oul d s uppor tthe det ent i on of appe l l antbyT r ooperR ul e foraboutt en m in u te s . J u d g m e n t a f

f ir m e d . E n te re d f o r t h e C o u rt ,
Ro b e r tH. M c W i l l i a ms C i r cui tJ udge0 5 -3 2 5 3 , Uni t ed St at es v. $49, 000 i n U . S. C ur r ency

LU CE RO , J . , di s s ent i ng.

B eca us e I fi nd t hi s cas e i ndi s t i ngui s habl e fr om U ni t ed St at es v. W ood, 106 F .3 d 9 4 2 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ), I re s p e c tf u lly d is s e n t. T he d i st ri ct cou rt fou nd reas on able s uspici on based o n the foll ow i ng fact s: ( 1) H effer nan fl ew fr om L os A ngel es t o D et r oi t and r ent ed a c ar t o dr i ve bac k; ( 2) Such t r avel pl ans ar e us ed by dr ug cour i er s ; ( 3) I nt er s t at e 70 i s a know n dr ug ro u te; (4 ) L o s A n g e les is a k n o w n d ru g so u rc e ; (5 ) H e ffe rn a n w a s n e rv o u s a n d h is hands w er e s haki ng; ( 6) T he ca r r ent al agr eement i ndi cat ed t hat t he ca r w as t o be ret urned in D et roi t , bu t H effernan sai d h e w as going t o ret urn i t i n L os A ng el es; a n d (7 ) H e ffe rn a n h a d b e e n a rr e s te d p re v io u s ly o n a d ru g c h a rg e . In W o o d , this C o u rt fo u n d n o re a so n a b le s u sp icio n in a n e ss e n tially i dent i cal s cena r i o. T er r y W ood w as s t opped by a K ans as H i ghw ay Pat r ol t r ooper w hil e t ravel i ng on Int ers t at e 70 . 10 6 F . 3d at 94 4. H e w as ext rem el y nervou s – hi s br eat hi ng w as r api d and hi s hands w er e t r embl i ng. I d. W ood i ndi cat ed t hat he had f l ow n fr om T opeka t o Sacr ament o for a vac at i on and dec i ded t o r ent a ca r t o dr i ve bac k. I d. A l t hough t he agr eement s t at ed t hat t he ca r w as r ent ed and due t o be r et ur ned i n Sacr ament o, W ood s ai d t hat he r ent ed i t i n San Fr anci s co and w as t o r et ur n i t i n T opeka. I d. T he t r ooper r an a c r i m i nal backgr ound chec k and fo u n d th a t W o o d h a d b e e n p re v io u s ly ar re s te d o n a fe lo n y n a rc o tic s c h a rg e . Id . At t h a t p o i n t t h e t r o o p e r i n i t i a t e d t h e n o n - c o n s e n s u a l c a n i n e s e a r c h t h a t we- 2 -

det er m i ned w as uncons t i t ut i onal . I d. A t t r i al , t he t r ooper al s o t es t i fi ed t hat C al i for ni a w as a know n s our ce s t at e for nar cot i cs . I d. at 947. T r ooper R ul e’ s t es t i m ony t hat I nt er s t at e 70 i s a dr ug r out e and t hat dr ug s m uggl er s fr equent l y fl y one w ay and r et ur n by car does not di s t i ngui s h t he p rese n t case fro m W o o d . It w as n o t t h e fac tual fin d ing that W o o d ’s plan s w ere “unl i kel y or i m pl aus i bl e” t hat t he W ood panel r ej ect ed, r at her i t w as t he l egal concl us i on t hat s uch t r avel pl ans pr ovi ded r eas onabl e s us pi ci on under t he ci r cumst ance s . I d. at 946- 47 ( “W e di s agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s l egal concl us i on t hat M r . W ood’ s t r avel pl ans w er e t he s or t of unus ual pl ans w hi ch g ive rise to re aso n ab le su sp ici o n o f c ri m inal ac ti v it y . ”). Si m i l ar l y , t he fa ct t hat T r ooper R ul e had a dr ug dog w i t h hi m , m aki ng t he sto p m u c h sh o rte r, is im m a ter ial. T h e len g th o f th e sto p is n o t re lev a n t in det er m i ni ng w het her r eas onabl e s us pi ci on exi s t ed at t he i ncept i on of t he det ent i on. See Ter r y v. O hi o, 392 U . S. 1, 19- 20 ( 1968) ( “[I ] n det er m i ni ng w het her t he s ei zur e and s ear ch w er e ‘ unr eas onabl e’ our i nqui r y i s a dual one – w het her t he off

i cer ’ s act i on w as j us t i fi ed at i t s i ncept i on, and w het her i t w as r eas onabl y r el at ed i n s cope t o t he ci r cumst ance s w hi ch j us t i fi ed t he i nt er fer ence in the first p lace . ”). F o r th e se re a so n s, I re sp e c tf u lly d iss e n t.