United States v. Dwayne Thompson, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21853

Dwayne Thompson, alleged Cali Connect cocaine supplier, challenged suppression of evidence from a 2007 traffic stop and from statements made after arrest but before presentment.
Texas stop: Thompson was speeding on I-40 (84 mph in 70 mph zone); trooper Livermore observed suspicious luggage, nervousness, and lack of eye contact.
K-9 unit alerted; locked bed area searched; five large tubs of marijuana found; six kilograms of cocaine found in the tailgate area after search.
After arrest, Thompson was transported to a district office; DEA later conducted residence searches tied to Cali Connect; Thompson cooperated beginning after Miranda advisement.
Thompson signed a waiver of prompt presentment about 12 hours after arrest; he was presented almost 48 hours after arrest, and statements were obtained during that delay.
District Court denied suppression on the traffic-stop fruits but denied suppression of statements; Thompson pled guilty while preserving appellate rights on suppression rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the traffic stop extension to a K-9 search violated the Fourth Amendment	Thompson argued no reasonable suspicion to extend the stop beyond the original traffic violation.	Livermore claimed his experience and observed factors created reasonable suspicion to extend for a narcotics search.	Reasonable, articulable suspicion supported extension; traffic-stop suppression denied.
Whether Thompson's statements should be suppressed under the McNabb–Mallory rule	Thompson contends the delay before presentment was unreasonable and extended interrogation.	Government argues delays were reasonable due to processing, transportation, and pursuit of cooperation.	Delay was unreasonable and unnecessary; statements should have been suppressed.

United States v. Givan, 320 F.3d 452 (3d Cir. 2003) (framework for reasonable suspicion in traffic stops)
United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (reasonable suspicion standard; totality of circumstances)
United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (totality of circumstances for investigative stops)
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality of circumstances; officer experience and inference)
United States v. Mathurin, 561 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 2009) (elimination of innocent factors in totality analysis)
Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 439 (1980) (unparticularized suspicion and hunch invalid for seizure)
McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943) (prompt presentment rule; interrogation dangers)
Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957) (prompt presentment expansion; coercive interrogation concerns)
Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (2009) (§ 3501(c) and McNabb–Mallory modification; presentment timing)
Garcia-Hernandez, 569 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2009) (administrative delays; reasonableness under McNabb–Mallory)
Boche-Perez, 755 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2014) (transportation delays and presentment timing considerations)
Perez, 733 F.2d 1026 (2d Cir. 1984) (delay for investigation as reasonable when concomitant with other tasks)
Helmandollar, 852 F.2d 498 (9th Cir. 1988) (interrogation restrictions and delay consequences)
Wilson, 838 F.2d 1081 (9th Cir. 1988) (unexplained delays near magistrate availability)