U.S. v. Alexander, No. 05-3378.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Wollman |
| Citation | 448 F.3d 1014 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James Stephen ALEXANDER, II, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 05-3378. |
| Decision Date | 15 May 2006 |
v.
James Stephen ALEXANDER, II, Appellant.
Page 1015
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Omar F. Greene, argued, Little Rock, AR, for appellant.
Assistant U.S. Atty., Anne Gardner, Little Rock, AR, for appellee.
Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.
James Stephen Alexander appeals from the district court's1 denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.
At approximately 1:49 p.m. on January 25, 2004, Trooper Kyle Drown, a canine officer with the Arkansas Highway Patrol, stopped Alexander as he was driving an automobile that bore only one of two required California license tags. Drown asked Alexander to sit in his patrol car while Drown checked Alexander's Alabama driver's license. While they were in the patrol car, Drown asked Alexander about the details of his trip. Alexander said he had flown to California on January 22 to purchase the car and was returning home to Alabama. As Drown later testified, he was concerned about conflicts and inconsistencies in Alexander's account of his trip, and he noticed that Alexander appeared nervous and very tired.
At approximately 2:01 p.m., Drown told Alexander that he would give him a written warning. Immediately thereafter, Drown asked Alexander whether there was anything illegal in his car and requested Alexander's consent to search the car. Alexander replied that he did not know of any contraband in his car but that because he had not searched it yet himself, he
Page 1016
would not consent to a search. At approximately 2:03 p.m., Drown told Alexander that he was going to conduct an exterior search of the vehicle with his drug dog and that if the dog did not alert, Alexander would be free to go.
Drown conducted the exterior search by leading the dog around the car, whereupon the dog alerted to the odor of narcotics. The entire dog sniff search was completed by approximately 2:05 p.m., four minutes after Drown told Alexander that he would be given a warning ticket and sixteen minutes after the traffic stop commenced.
During their subsequent search of the car's interior, Drown and his fellow officer found several duct-taped packages containing methamphetamine and placed Alexander under arrest. Following the district court's denial of his motion to suppress, Alexander entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Alexander to eighty-seven months' imprisonment and five years' supervised release.
A canine sniff of the exterior of a car conducted during a traffic stop that is lawful at its inception and otherwise executed in a reasonable matter does not infringe upon a constitutionally protected interest in privacy. United States v. Martin, 411 F.3d 998, 1002 (8th Cir.2005). Such a dog sniff may be the product of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriguez v. United States, No. 13–9972.
...stop are not constitutionally prohibited if they constitute only de minimis intrusions.” App. 114 (quoting United States v. Alexander,448 F.3d 1014, 1016 (C.A.8 2006)). The court thus agreed with the Magistrate Judge that the “7 to 10 minutes” added to the stop by the dog sniff “was not of ......
-
People v. Cummings, No. 115769.
...he informed the defendant of the reason for the stop, and he never gave the defendant an “all clear.” See United States v. Alexander, 448 F.3d 1014, 1016 (8th Cir.2006). Of course, a police officer need not inform a driver that he or she is free to leave before making further inquiries. See......
-
USA v. Maynard, Nos. 08-3030, 08-3034.
...of the stop, from the time Whitehead frisked Maynard until the dog alerted, was a separate seizure. See United States v. Alexander, 448 F.3d 1014, 1016 (8th Cir.2006) (dog sniff “may be the product of an unconstitutional seizure [ ] if the traffic stop is unreasonably prolonged before the d......
-
Rodriguez v. United States, No. 13–9972.
...stop are not constitutionally prohibited if they constitute only de minimis intrusions." App. 114 (quoting United States v. Alexander, 448 F.3d 1014, 1016 (C.A.8 2006) ). The court thus agreed with the Magistrate Judge that the "7 to 10 minutes" added to the stop by the dog sniff "was not o......
-
Rodriguez v. United States, No. 13–9972.
...stop are not constitutionally prohibited if they constitute only de minimis intrusions.” App. 114 (quoting United States v. Alexander,448 F.3d 1014, 1016 (C.A.8 2006)). The court thus agreed with the Magistrate Judge that the “7 to 10 minutes” added to the stop by the dog sniff “was not of ......
-
People v. Cummings, No. 115769.
...he informed the defendant of the reason for the stop, and he never gave the defendant an “all clear.” See United States v. Alexander, 448 F.3d 1014, 1016 (8th Cir.2006). Of course, a police officer need not inform a driver that he or she is free to leave before making further inquiries. See......
-
USA v. Maynard, Nos. 08-3030, 08-3034.
...of the stop, from the time Whitehead frisked Maynard until the dog alerted, was a separate seizure. See United States v. Alexander, 448 F.3d 1014, 1016 (8th Cir.2006) (dog sniff “may be the product of an unconstitutional seizure [ ] if the traffic stop is unreasonably prolonged before the d......
-
Rodriguez v. United States, No. 13–9972.
...stop are not constitutionally prohibited if they constitute only de minimis intrusions." App. 114 (quoting United States v. Alexander, 448 F.3d 1014, 1016 (C.A.8 2006) ). The court thus agreed with the Magistrate Judge that the "7 to 10 minutes" added to the stop by the dog sniff "was not o......