United States v. Rodriguez, No. 13–1176.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtWOLLMAN
Citation741 F.3d 905
Decision Date31 January 2014
Docket NumberNo. 13–1176.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee v. Dennys RODRIGUEZ, Defendant–Appellant.

741 F.3d 905

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee
v.
Dennys RODRIGUEZ, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 13–1176.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 21, 2013.
Filed Jan. 31, 2014.


[741 F.3d 906]


Martin Conboy, IV, Omaha, NE, for Plaintiff–Appellee.

Shannon Patrick O'Connor, Omaha, NE, for Defendant–Appellant.


Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Dennys Rodriguez entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1). Rodriguez appeals from the district court's 1 order denying his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.

On March 27, 2012, just after midnight, police officer Morgan Struble observed a vehicle veer slowly onto the shoulder of the highway, before it jerked back onto the road. Struble initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle at 12:06 a.m. Struble is a K–9 officer, and his dog Floyd was with him that night.

Struble approached the vehicle on the passenger's side. The driver identified himself as Rodriguez. When asked why he drove onto the shoulder, Rodriguez replied that he had swerved to avoid a pothole. The passenger, who would not make eye contact with Struble, identified himself as Scott Pollman. Struble gathered Rodriguez's license, registration, and proof of insurance and asked Rodriguez to accompany him to the patrol car. Rodriguez asked if he was required to do so, and Struble said that he was not. Rodriguez then decided to wait in his own vehicle.

[741 F.3d 907]

Struble went to his patrol car to complete a records check on Rodriguez. When he returned to Rodriguez's vehicle, Struble asked Pollman for his identification and inquired where Pollman and Rodriguez had been. Pollman explained that they had traveled to Omaha, Nebraska, to look at a Ford Mustang that was for sale and that they were returning to Norfolk, Nebraska. When Struble went to his patrol car for a second time, he completed a records check on Pollman and called for a second officer. Struble issued a written warning to Rodriguez at 12:27 or 12:28 a.m.

Struble then asked for permission to walk his dog around Rodriguez's vehicle. When Rodriguez refused consent, Struble instructed him to exit the vehicle. Rodriguez then exited the vehicle and stood in front of the patrol car while they waited for a second officer to arrive. At 12:33...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 practice notes
  • Rodriguez v. United States, No. 13–9972.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 21, 2015
    ...The “seven- or eight-minute delay” in this case, the opinion noted, resembled delays that the court had previously ranked as permissible. 741 F.3d 905, 907 (2014). The Court of Appeals thus ruled that the delay here constituted an acceptable “de minimisintrusion on Rodriguez's personal libe......
  • Zink v. Lombardi, No. 14–2220.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • March 6, 2015
    ...required of them: a concession “that other methods of lethal injection the Department could choose to use would be constitutional.” 741 F.3d at 905 (internal quotation marks omitted).The Eighth Circuit now changes, once again, the pleading requirements for an Eighth Amendment claim. Because......
  • Rodriguez v. United States, No. 13–9972.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 21, 2015
    ...The "seven- or eight-minute delay" in this case, the opinion noted, resembled delays that the court had previously ranked as permissible. 741 F.3d 905, 907 (2014). The Court of Appeals thus ruled that the delay here constituted an acceptable "de minimis intrusion on Rodriguez's personal lib......
  • United States v. Winters, No. 13–6349.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • March 31, 2015
    ...delay between completing a warning ticket and conducting a dog sniff did “not unreasonably prolong the stop.” United States v. Rodriguez, 741 F.3d 905, 907 (8th Cir.), cert. granted, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 43, 189 L.Ed.2d 896 (2014). Because such a delay is considered “a de minimis intrus......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
31 cases
  • Rodriguez v. United States, No. 13–9972.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 21, 2015
    ...The “seven- or eight-minute delay” in this case, the opinion noted, resembled delays that the court had previously ranked as permissible. 741 F.3d 905, 907 (2014). The Court of Appeals thus ruled that the delay here constituted an acceptable “de minimisintrusion on Rodriguez's personal libe......
  • Zink v. Lombardi, No. 14–2220.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • March 6, 2015
    ...required of them: a concession “that other methods of lethal injection the Department could choose to use would be constitutional.” 741 F.3d at 905 (internal quotation marks omitted).The Eighth Circuit now changes, once again, the pleading requirements for an Eighth Amendment claim. Because......
  • Rodriguez v. United States, No. 13–9972.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 21, 2015
    ...The "seven- or eight-minute delay" in this case, the opinion noted, resembled delays that the court had previously ranked as permissible. 741 F.3d 905, 907 (2014). The Court of Appeals thus ruled that the delay here constituted an acceptable "de minimis intrusion on Rodriguez's personal lib......
  • United States v. Winters, No. 13–6349.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • March 31, 2015
    ...delay between completing a warning ticket and conducting a dog sniff did “not unreasonably prolong the stop.” United States v. Rodriguez, 741 F.3d 905, 907 (8th Cir.), cert. granted, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 43, 189 L.Ed.2d 896 (2014). Because such a delay is considered “a de minimis intrus......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT