Opinion ID: 165698
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Rental Car Agreement

Text: 32 The third factor listed by the district court in support of a finding of reasonable suspicion was the comparison of Mr. Santos's rental car agreement with his travel plans. Mr. Santos had rented a car in California on January 10, was in Wyoming on January 13, and proposed to drive to New York and back despite a January 17 due date in his rental agreement for returning the car to California. As summarized by the district court: Defendant's rental agreement indicated an eight-day rental from California, when he was only as far as Wyoming on the fourth day of that rental, suggesting that he planned to turn right back after reaching New York rather than staying several days or a week. Op. at 14-15. 33 Implausible travel plans can contribute to reasonable suspicion. United States v. Kopp, 45 F.3d 1450, 1453-54 (10th Cir.1995); United States v. Sanchez-Valderuten, 11 F.3d 985, 989 (10th Cir.1993). A four-day, cross-country round trip does seem unusual, especially if the driver planned to visit with his mother in New York, pack up his sister, and return with her to California. But this may be reading too much into the rental agreement. The government presented no evidence that extending the car rental period would entail any financial penalty, or even any increase in the rate. 5 Common experience suggests that it is not unusual for a driver to rent a car for a certain period, and then to extend the rental without incurring a penalty or paying a higher rate. Such an arrangement may suggest that the driver's travel plans are uncertain or subject to change, but, without more, not that they are implausible. 34 This case thus bears some resemblance to, but is ultimately distinguishable from United States v. McRae, 81 F.3d 1528 (10th Cir.1996). In McRae, the defendant rented an automobile in California, with an anticipated return date of January 14. On January 12, he was stopped in southern Utah for a routine traffic violation and informed the officer he was going to New York to attend a friend's wedding. The officer asked if the defendant was going to return the car in New York, and if he would like to be charged a late fee, that sort of thing. Id. at 1531. This Court observed that these travel plans were not as implausible or contradictory as those in the Court's precedents, but that the defendant's evident lack of concern about how he would return the rental car displays an unusually cavalier attitude towards a financial obligation most people take quite seriously. Id. at 1535. The Court conclude[d] that his vague response to Officer Colyar's inquiries concerning his rental car arrangements correctly contributed to a reasonable suspicion in a trained and experienced officer like Officer Colyar. Id. 35 The present case is distinguishable from McRae. In McRae, the Court did not find the mere fact that a driver entered a rental car agreement with an anticipated return date earlier than his probable return implausible or contradictory in itself; it was the defendant's cavalier attitude toward his financial obligations, reflected in his vague responses to the officer's direct questions, that formed the basis for reasonable suspicion. Here, by contrast, Trooper Peech noticed the return date on the rental agreement but did not discuss its implications with Mr. Santos. The district court here did not rely on the nature of Mr. Santos's attitude or responses regarding this issue in denying the motion to suppress. 36 We note also that in McRae, there was testimony that the defendant would incur — or at least thought he would incur — a late fee if he failed to return the vehicle two days after the traffic stop. Id. at 1540 n. 5 (Murphy, J., concurring). There was no such testimony or evidence in this case. We decline to read McRae broadly, as holding that the mere existence of a rental agreement with an anticipated return date earlier than the defendant's travel plans would make convenient, without more, supports a finding of reasonable suspicion.