United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
June 21, 2007
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
_______________________
No. 06-41180
Summary Calendar
_______________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DANIEL ROBERT WHITE,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(USDC No. 1:05-CR-127-ALL)
__________________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Daniel Robert White appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress
evidence that officers found in a search of White’s home after White, under custodial arrest
*
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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
1
following a traffic stop that revealed drugs, consented to the search. We affirm for the
following reasons:
1. We will not disturb the district court’s credibility finding with respect to the
officers’ testimony of an ongoing investigation into White’s suspected drug
trafficking. United States v. Santiago, 410 F.3d 193, 197 (5th Cir. 2005) (“this
court reviews factual findings, including credibility choices, for clear error .
. . Where a district court's denial of a suppression motion is based on live oral
testimony, the clearly erroneous standard is particularly strong because the
judge had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.”).
2. Viewed as a drug investigation, the brief detention necessary to satisfy a
canine’s olfactory curiosity was not unreasonable. United States v. Brigham,
382 F.3d 500, 511 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (“There is, however, no
constitutional stopwatch on traffic stops. Instead, the relevant question in
assessing whether a detention extends beyond a reasonable duration is whether
the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to
confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly.”) (internal quotation omitted). The
officers testified at the suppression hearing that when White’s visitors began
to disperse from his house, Deputy Ungles was instructed to follow White’s
truck and establish probable cause if possible. Ungles did just that, and when
Ungles determined that White was in fact in the truck, Deputies McCowen and
McNeely arrived at the scene with the canine. Regardless of the precise order
2
of the return of the computer checks and the request for consent to
search—which when denied led the officers to walk the canine around the
truck—the record is clear that any residual delay was far short of what we
could call unreasonable in light of the officers’ ongoing investigation into
suspected drug trafficking.
3. There being no constitutional violation in the course of the traffic stop, the
subsequent search of White’s home was not tainted.
AFFIRMED.
3