Opinion ID: 2805011
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Extension of the stop

Text: We also agree with the district court’s conclusion that the officers were justified in extending the duration of the traffic stop because they had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity—possession of marijuana and driving while intoxicated—based on Mr. Valencia’s left turn off Cerrillos Road against the light, the marijuana smell, and the roach, which C.T. said was the remains of what they had been smoking. See United States v. Kitchell, 653 F.3d 1206, 1217-18 (10th Cir. 2011) (stating settled rule that an officer may extend a traffic stop beyond its original purpose if the officer “acquire[s] a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Bradford, 423 F.3d 1149, 1160 (10th Cir. 2005) (concluding that an officer has probable cause to search entire vehicle when its occupant hands marijuana to the officer); United States v. Parker, 72 F.3d 1444, 1450 (10th Cir. 1995) (finding probable cause to search passenger compartment when officer smells marijuana there). The video evidence squarely rebuts Mr. Valencia’s arguments that he did not run the light and that C.T. did not hand over the roach and then state that the three had been smoking it. Contrary to Mr. Valencia’s argument, the fact that there was no cloud of smoke visible when the officers were first in contact with the vehicle does not establish that the officers did not smell burnt -9- marijuana. Further, their claim that they smelled burnt marijuana is clearly supported by other evidence that the three juveniles had smoked marijuana in the car. 4