F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
January 19, 2007
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 05-4255
AD RIAN T. STEWA RT,
Defendant-Appellant.
A PPE AL FR OM T HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR T HE DISTRICT OF UTAH
(D.C. NO . 2:04-CR-00024 BSJ)
Scott C. W illiams, Salt Lake City, Utah, for D efendant-Appellant.
Diana Hagen, Assistant United States Attorney (Brett L. Tolman, United States
Attorney, with her on the briefs), Salt Lake City, Utah, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before H E N RY, HOL LOW A Y, and M cCO NNELL, Circuit Judges.
M cCO NNELL, Circuit Judge.
A traffic stop of Adrian T. Stewart’s car in Heber City, Utah, led to the
discovery under his seat of a loaded .9 millimeter pistol with the safety off and a
package of methamphetamine hidden in a rollerblade. M r. Stew art moved to
suppress this evidence, arguing that the officer’s question that led to the
discovery of the gun, and the subsequent search of his vehicle, violated his Fourth
Amendment rights. The district court denied his motion, and a jury convicted him
of m ethamphetamine possession. The government dismissed the gun charge. He
now appeals from the district court’s denial of his suppression motion.
In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in M uehler v. M ena, 544
U.S. 93 (2005), we hold that the officer’s question was not a Fourth Amendment
violation because— as M r. Stewart concedes— it did not prolong the length of the
traffic stop. W e also hold that the vehicle search was proper under the
automobile exception to the warrant requirement. W e therefore AFFIRM the
district court’s denial of M r. Stewart’s motion to suppress.
FACTS
On September 11, 2003, Sergeant Jeffery W interton of the W asatch County
Sheriff’s Office received a phone call from an informant “indicat[ing] that there
was a vehicle parked at a location in Heber City, [Utah,] and that every time that
vehicle was in town there was dope in it.” R. Vol. III, at 8. At first, Sergeant
W interton rebuffed the informant’s invitation to come see the vehicle, citing his
heavy workload. He eventually relented, however, and met the informant in a
M cDonald’s parking lot. The two traveled together in W interton’s car to the Bear
M ountain Chalet, a Heber City motel, where the informant pointed out a w hite
Chevrolet Tahoe backed into a motel parking stall. It bore an Idaho license plate.
W interton saw that the Tahoe lacked a front license plate as both Utah and Idaho
-2-
law require. Idaho Code Ann. § 49-428(1); Utah Code Ann. § 41-1a-404(1).
Because no one was in or around the Tahoe at that time, and because he had other
work to do, W interton returned the informant to his own car at M cDonald’s and
continued working on his previously scheduled tasks.
M ore than two hours later, Sergeant W interton returned to the Bear
M ountain C halet’s parking lot and saw that the Tahoe was still there. He
reconnoitered and observed a woman open the Tahoe’s passenger side front door
and repeatedly walk from there to the Tahoe’s rear hatch. At the time, he was
unable to discern what the woman was doing. He also saw that the driver’s door
was open, but he did not see anyone other than the woman near the Tahoe. The
woman eventually sat in the front passenger seat and closed the door.
Approximately one minute later, the driver’s door shut, and the Tahoe left the
parking lot.
Sergeant W interton followed the Tahoe. He tried to run a records search
but was unable to see the Tahoe’s license plate number because some straps from
a bicycle rack were obscuring it. W interton then turned on his emergency lights
and stopped the Tahoe.
The driver was Adrian Stewart. W hen Sergeant W interton asked him for
his driver’s license and registration, M r. Stewart “became very nervous” and
“delayed” giving a response. Id. at 13. Stewart “look[ed] around inside the
-3-
vehicle . . . then said he thought” his license was “in the back.” Id. He then
“made a furtive movement to the back of the vehicle.” Id.
Sergeant Winterton told M r. Stewart to stop reaching for the backseat. He
asked if Stew art could obtain his driver’s license from the back of the Tahoe if
Stewart stepped out of the car. M r. Stewart said that he could. Before opening
the door and letting M r. Stewart out of the vehicle, Sergeant W interton “asked
M r. Stewart if he had any weapons or contraband in the vehicle that [W interton]
needed to be concerned about.” Id. at 13. W hen Stewart responded that he had a
gun under the driver’s seat, Sergeant W interton asked him to exit the Tahoe. H e
did, and W interton escorted him to the back of the vehicle.
W hile M r. Stewart waited, Sergeant Winterton checked under the driver’s
seat and found in a pistol case a loaded .9 millimeter handgun with the safety off.
This discovery prompted W interton to arrest M r. Stewart. He did not, however,
search the vehicle incident to this arrest. Instead, he received permission from
M r. Stewart to enter the Tahoe for the limited purpose of finding Stewart’s
driver’s license. After several failed attempts to find the license, and repeated
calls to dispatch, Sergeant W interton was able to verify that M r. Stewart had a
valid Idaho’s driver’s license. W interton then took M r. Stewart to jail.
Before leaving, however, W interton called for other officers to impound the
Tahoe and inventory its contents. One of those was Deputy Gregory Royal, a dog
handler. Deputy Royal arrived to impound the Tahoe, but decided to deploy his
-4-
narcotics detection dog Boomer before doing so. Boomer had been certified in
Colorado as a narcotics detection dog in August 2003— approximately one month
before this sniff occurred— and he had not yet been certified in Utah. Deputy
Royal started Boomer “at the back of the vehicle on the passenger side, and [he]
walked Boomer around, up the passenger side, around the front, down the driver’s
side of the vehicle, where Boomer then alerted” on the rear driver’s side by
aggressively scratching at the Tahoe. Id. at 50–51.
Deputy Royal notified Sergeant Olsen of the alert and put Boomer away.
The two officers then began to inventory the Tahoe’s contents. No search,
inventory or otherw ise, occurred until after Boomer alerted. During the inventory
search, the officers found a pair of rollerblades in the Tahoe’s rear hatch, on the
driver’s side of the car. They discovered inside one rollerblade a four- to five-
inch-long package that “was wrapped in duct tape which appeared to have maybe
a sock that was showing on the corner that was poking out.” Id. at 52. Based on
Deputy Royal’s training, he suspected the package contained narcotics. Royal
contacted Sergeant Olsen, another officer on the scene, who opened the package
to discover a white, crystal-like substance that turned out to be methamphetamine.
M r. Stew art was eventually indicted for possession of methamphetamine in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and for possession of a firearm by a restricted
person in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). A jury convicted him, and he was
-5-
sentenced to ninety-seven months imprisonment and forty-eight months of
supervised release.
D ISC USSIO N
I. W interton’s Q uestion to Stew art W as Constitutional.
M r. Stew art bases his first argument— that W interton violated his Fourth
Amendment rights by asking about the presence of weapons or contraband— on
United States v. Holt, 264 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2001) (en banc). In Holt, a
majority of this Court sitting en banc “delineate[d] the scope of permissible
questioning during a routine traffic stop,” id. at 1217, by holding “that both the
length and scope of a traffic stop are relevant factors in deciding whether the stop
comports with the Fourth Amendment,” id. at 1227. Discussing the “scope”
aspect, we held that an “officer’s question about the existence of a loaded weapon
in the vehicle” did not violate the driver’s Fourth Amendment rights because that
inquiry “was justified on the grounds of officer safety.” Id. at 1217.
The en banc Holt court, however, split on the question presented here:
whether the Constitution permits officers to ask about unloaded weapons or other
contraband. Four judges “reject[ed] the government’s invitation to adopt” a
“bright-line rule allowing an officer conducting a traffic stop to ask the driver
about the presence of weapons, absent reasonable suspicion that the driver may be
armed and dangerous.” Id. at 1230 (opinion of Briscoe, J.). One judge saw no
constitutional problem w ith such questions as long as they did not “prolong the
-6-
duration of the stop or alter its fundamental character as a Terry-type detention.”
Id. at 1237 (opinion of Henry, J.). And four judges preferred not to resolve that
question in that case due to an inadequately developed factual record. Id. at
1226–27 (opinion of Ebel, J.).
Thus, following Holt, the constitutionality of inquiries such as W interton’s
to M r. Stewart was an open question. So if Holt were the most recent decision on
this subject, M r. Stewart’s argument might well have merit. Unfortunately for
him, it is not. The Supreme Court has since adopted Judge Henry’s view in Holt
by holding that the content of police questions during a lawful detention does not
implicate the Fourth Amendment as long as those questions do not prolong the
detention. M uehler v. M ena, 544 U.S. 93, 101 (2005). W e have applied M uehler
in traffic stop cases to resolve Fourth Amendment objections similar to M r.
Stewart’s. See United States v. Alcaraz-Arellano, 441 F.3d 1252, 1258–59 (10th
Cir. 2006); United States v. Wallace, 429 F.3d 969, 974 (10th Cir. 2005).
W e now make explicit what we implied in Alcaraz-Arellano and Wallace:
in light of M uehler, the language from Holt approving traffic stop questions only
when the officers specifically mention loaded weapons is no longer good law.
See Alcaraz-Arellano, 441 F.3d at 1258 (“In light of M uehler, we have held that
‘[a]s long as the [deputy’s] questioning did not extend the length of the detention,
. . . there is no Fourth Amendment issue with respect to the content of the
questions.’” (quoting Wallace, 429 F.3d at 974)). The correct Fourth Amendment
-7-
inquiry (assuming the detention is legitimate) is whether an officer’s traffic stop
questions “extended the time” that a driver was detained, regardless of the
questions’ content. M uehler, 544 U.S. at 101.
Here, M r. Stewart concedes in his reply brief that “[i]t certainly can’t be
said that [Sergeant W interton’s] question in and of itself appreciably extended the
duration of the stop.” Reply Br. 5. This admission ends our inquiry. W e
therefore affirm the district court’s ruling that W interton’s query— even though it
sought information about “any weapons or contraband in the vehicle,” R. Vol. III,
at 13 (emphasis added), not just loaded ones— was constitutional.
II. The Tahoe Search W as Constitutional under the Automobile Exception
to the W arrant Requirem ent.
M r. Stewart next argues that the district court erred by holding that the
search of his Tahoe w as a lawful search incident to arrest. Citing this Court’s
decision in United States v. Dennison, 410 F.3d 1203, 1209 (10th Cir. 2005), the
government concedes that this ruling is erroneous because M r. Stewart had left
the scene and was en route to the police station when the police searched his
Tahoe. Appellee’s Br. 13–14. The government nevertheless asks us to affirm on
the alternative ground that the search was justified under the automobile
exception to the warrant requirement. Because there are sufficient grounds in the
record to support the government’s alternative theory, see United States v.
Ledford, 443 F.3d 702, 707 (10th Cir. 2005), we affirm on that basis.
-8-
“The police may search an automobile and the containers w ithin it where
they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained.”
California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 580 (1991). “A canine alert gives rise to
probable cause to search a vehicle.” United States v. W illiams, 403 F.3d 1203,
1207 (10th Cir. 2005). This is so even when the dog alert occurs during a
warrantless sniff on “the exterior of a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop”
because such sniffs do not implicate the Fourth Amendment. Id. (citing Illinois v.
Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 409 (2005)).
The record reveals that Sergeant W interton had two objectively reasonable
bases for stopping M r. Stewart’s Tahoe. First, it lacked a front license plate.
Second, its rear license plate was obscured. R. Vol. III, at 28–29. The traffic
stop was therefore lawful. And after Sergeant W interton arrested M r. Stewart for
keeping a loaded gun in his car, another violation of Utah law, Deputy Royal
arrived and deployed Boomer before anyone searched the Tahoe. Id. at 60–61.
Boomer alerted on the Tahoe’s rear driver’s side by aggressively scratching at it.
Id. at 50–51. This alert gave rise to probable cause to search M r. Stewart’s Tahoe
and its contents. The officers did so, and discovered the drugs, only after Boomer
alerted. Id. at 61. Based on these facts, we hold that the officers’ search of M r.
Stewart’s Tahoe was lawful under the automobile exception to the warrant
requirement.
-9-
M r. Stewart, however, urges us not to affirm on this basis. He states that
he first learned of Boomer’s sniff at the evidentiary hearing, and that the belated
disclosure prevented him from adequately investigating it. W hile the timing of
the disclosure may be suspect, M r. Stew art nonetheless w as able to investigate
fully. His law yer thoroughly cross-examined Deputy Royal about Boomer’s
training and experience. He then asked for and received more than ten days to
further investigate B oomer’s qualifications and Deputy Royal’s report. His post-
hearing investigation did not produce any new evidence that M r. Stew art could
have used to expand the scope of Deputy Royal’s cross-examination.
Accordingly, the exact time that M r. Stewart learned of Boomer’s alert does not
change the Fourth Amendment calculus here.
Similarly, M r. Stewart urges us to ignore Boomer’s alert because the
district court instructed the government to “skip the dog” and described the dog
sniff as “superfluous.” R. Vol. V, at 24–25. The district court made these
comments, however, during oral argument on M r. Stewart’s motion to suppress,
not during the evidentiary hearings on that motion. The court gave M r. Stewart
tremendous latitude in the evidentiary hearing to conduct whatever inquiry he felt
was appropriate. Only after it decided that the search was properly categorized as
an inventory search or a search incident to arrest did the district court limit the
prosecutor’s arguments about the dog sniff.
-10-
W e are not limited by the district court’s legal conclusions. Indeed, this is
precisely the type of case susceptible to affirmance on alternate grounds: the
defendant had every opportunity to develop a factual record on this issue. Our
view of those facts persuades us that the dog sniff may be serendipitous, but it is
not superfluous.
C ON CLU SIO N
W e AFFIRM the district court’s denial of M r. Stewart’s motion to suppress.
-11-