United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 23, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-40947
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM WYATT JORDAN, II,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:03-CR-96-ALL
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Following his conditional guilty plea to possessing with the
intent to distribute three kilograms of cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a), and resulting 87-month sentence, William
Wyatt Jordan, II, appeals the denial of his pretrial motion to
suppress. He argues that the district court erred in denying his
motion because his detention following the initially valid
traffic stop was unconstitutionally prolonged and that his
subsequent consent to the search of his vehicle was invalid.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-40947
-2-
This court reviews the district court’s ultimate conclusions
on Fourth Amendment issues de novo. United States v. Brigham,
382 F.3d 500, 506 n.2 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Because Jordan
concedes that his initial stop was valid, the pertinent inquiry
in this appeal is whether his detention following the stop was
reasonable to dispel Trooper Chauvin’s suspicion of unlawful
activity that developed during the course of the stop. See id.
at 506.
Jordan contends that it took Chauvin 12 minutes to complete
the citation for which he was pulled over, when the ticket should
have been issued within a matter of seconds, and that Chauvin
unreasonably and unconstitutionally prolonged his detention
beyond that necessary to effectuate the purpose of the initial
stop, asking questions unrelated to the stop and “relying on a
vague hunch of wrongdoing.”
Contrary to Jordan’s assertion, Chauvin did not ask any
impermissible questions during the course of his detention. See
Brigham, 382 F.3d at 508. Moreover, the transcript of the
suppression hearing establishes that Chauvin relied on more than
a “vague hunch of wrongdoing;” instead, Chauvin’s actions were a
graduated response to emerging facts, were reasonable under a
totality of the circumstances, and did not unconstitutionally
extend Jordan’s detention. See id. at 506-09.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.