United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 22, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-51331
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CEDRICK WAYNE HOOF,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. P-03-CR-94-ALL
--------------------
Before GARZA, DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Cedrick Wayne Hoof appeals his conviction and sentence for
possession of five or more grams of cocaine base in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 844(a). Hoof argues that the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress because the discovery of the
cocaine base was the product of an unconstitutional search and
seizure.
Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper Christopher
McGuairt stopped Hoof on Interstate Highway 10 for speeding and
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 03-51331
-2-
following too close to another vehicle. During the course of the
traffic stop, Trooper McGuairt made multiple inquiries into
Hoof’s travel plans and background. After issuing Hoof a
citation for speeding and a warning for following too close
behind another vehicle, McGuairt requested and received
permission to search Hoof’s car and person. McGuairt’s search
resulted in the discovery of the cocaine base in question. Hoof
argues that McGuairt’s failure to confine his questioning to the
purpose of the traffic stop unreasonably extended Hoof’s
detention and violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
“When reviewing a district court's grant or denial of a
motion to suppress evidence as obtained in violation of the
Fourth Amendment, we review a district court's factual
determinations for clear error and its ultimate Fourth Amendment
conclusions de novo.” United States v. Gonzalez, 328 F.3d 755,
758 (5th Cir. 2003). We view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prevailing party. Id.
The district court did not err in determining that Trooper
McGuairt did not extend the detention beyond the valid traffic
stop. “Once the purpose of a valid traffic stop has been
completed and an officer's initial suspicions have been verified
or dispelled, the detention must end unless there is additional
reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts.” Gonzalez,
328 F.3d at 758. Based on Hoof’s driving behavior, shaking hands,
failure to maintain eye contact, gestures, and responses to
No. 03-51331
-3-
Trooper McGuairt’s questions, Trooper McGuairt developed a
reasonable suspicion of criminal activity supported by
articulable facts justifying Hoof’s detention beyond issuance of
the speeding citation. See United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d
500, 506-12 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc); Gonzalez, 328 F.3d at 758-
59.
As Trooper McGuairt’s questioning did not violate the Fourth
Amendment, Hoof’s consent to the search of his vehicle was not
unconstitutionally tainted. Gonzalez, 328 F.3d at 759. Further,
the record shows that the district court did not err in finding
that Hoof voluntarily consented to the search of his person and
vehicle. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.