Opinion ID: 151188
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statements Made to Oxner and Goble

Text: McCarty argues that the district court erred by admitting the statements he made to Oxner before being handcuffed and the statements he made to Goble after receiving a Miranda warning. We disagree. It was permissible for Oxner to ask McCarty basic investigatory questions at the time of the traffic stop and to expand the scope of these questions in light of his reasonable suspicions. When an officer develops a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity during a traffic stop, he has justification for a greater intrusion unrelated to the traffic offense. United States v. Pereira-Munoz, 59 F.3d 788, 791 (8th Cir.1995) (internal citations and punctuation omitted). Police officers are not required to ignore their reasonable suspicions. Rather, they are permitted to graduate their responses to the demands of any particular situation. Id. (internal punctuation omitted). Based upon his reasonable, articulable suspicions about drug trafficking, Oxner was entitled to expand the scope of the questioning beyond the original traffic offense. Oxner graduated his response to the evolving circumstances and employed the least intrusive means to verify or dispel his suspicion by asking McCarty to be truthful about the presence of drugs in the car. This line of questioning was reasonable in these circumstances, and the situation did not amount to a custodial interrogation. Thus, it was not error to admit the statements McCarty made to Oxner before he was handcuffed. Likewise, it was not error to admit McCarty's post- Miranda statements to Goble. As the district court determined, McCarty was properly informed of his Miranda rights, and he voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived those rights. All statements made thereafter were properly admitted.