The Honora ble Russell G. Clark, United States District Judge for the Western 1 District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3974

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western v. * District of Missouri. * Donald L. Grider, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 18, 1997 Filed: August 5, 1997

___________ Before LOKEN, MAGILL, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Don aldL. Grider appeals from his convictions on charges of possessin g methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense, in violation, respectively, of 21 U. S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). He complains that the district court erred in failing t o suppress the physical evidence against him and in finding him gu ilty, after a bench trial, of the firearms charge. We affirm the judgment of the district court. 1-2-

Mr. Grider's first argument in support of hi s complaint with respect to the denial of his motion to suppress is that the state tro oper who stopped him on the highway and later searched his vehicle did not have probable cause to do so. Mr. Grider did no t make this argument in support of his motion to suppress below, and he has therefore forfeited it. See United States v. Buchanan , 985 F. 2d 1372, 1380 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 512 U.S. 1228 (1994).
Mr. G rider also maintains that the trooper detained him longer than wa s nece ssary to conduct an investigation " 'reasonably related in scope to th e circum stances which justified the interference in the first place,' " United States v
. Cum mins , 920 F.2d 498, 502 (8th Cir. 1990), cert. denied , 502 U.S. 962 (1991) , quotin g Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 20 (1968), because, after giving him a warnin g ti cket, the trooper asked him if there were any drugs or guns in his van and the n r e quested permission to search the vehicle. Mr. Grider therefore asks us to hold that the search of his van that the trooper made thereafter was the result of an illega l de tention. The district court seems to have ruled that the trooper had in fact a lega l right to detain Mr. Grider to make the inquiries that Mr. Grider claims the Fourth Amendment does not authorize.
Th e government, on the other hand, does not ask us to adopt this lega l conclusion of the district court. Instead, it urges us to view the facts of this case in light of our holding in United States v. White , 81 F.3d 775 (8t h Cir. 1996), cert. denied , 117 S
. Ct. 518 (1996). In that case, which involved facts in all relevant ways identical to ours, w e held that after an officer issued a warning ticket, "the encounter becam e nothing more than a consensual encounter between a private citizen and a la w enforcement officer," id. at 778, and was, as a matter of law, no longer a seizure , because in the circumstances a reasonable person in the defend ant's position would feel free to go about his or her business, id. at 779. We think th at the government is correct that the holding in White applies to this case and that Mr. Grider was not unlawfully-3-

detained when

the trooper asked him if he had drugs or guns in his van and requested permission to search it. His argument in this respect therefore necessarily fails.
Mr. Grider also maintains that the consent that he gave to search his van wa s involuntarily given. But the district court's determination that Mr. Grider voluntarily cons ented to the search finds ample support in the record and is thus not clearl y erroneous. We therefore reject this argument. Finally, we have carefully considered Mr. Grider's arguments that the distric t court wrongly con victed him of the firearms offense, and we detect no error of law or fact in the record that would entitle Mr. Grider to relief. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court in all respects. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.