United States v. Jorge Zamora-Lopez, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15201

Zamora-Lopez pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine; district court sentenced him to 108 months' imprisonment.
Zamora-Lopez appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from a warrantless traffic stop.
An informant led agents to Memo, a meth supplier who had purchased meth from Memo roughly every 3–5 days for about 3 years.
The supplier described a recurring three-person pattern: supplier, Memo, and an unknown driver, often with Memo arriving in a silver SUV and using a separate vehicle for the exchange.
Agents conducted a controlled buy on February 25, 2011; Memo and a driver (later identified as Zamora-Lopez) used a Jeep Cherokee in the operation.
After a deputy followed the Jeep and signaled a stop, Zamora-Lopez was detained; a baggie of meth appeared when his coat pocket opened.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the stop supported by reasonable suspicion?	Zamora-Lopez argues there was no reasonable suspicion.	Zamora-Lopez contends deputies reasonably suspected driver’s involvement.	Yes; the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion.

Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (plain-view-like observations during a Terry stop.)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (authorized brief stops to investigate suspicious activity.)
United States v. Stewart, 631 F.3d 453 (8th Cir. 2011) (reasonable-suspicion determination based on totality of the circumstances.)
United States v. Jones, 269 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2001) (investigatory stop framework for vehicles.)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (corroboration of informant tips supports probable cause.)
United States v. Payne, 534 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for suppression rulings; de novo with clear-error factual findings.)
United States v. Stachowiak, 521 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 2008) (limits to which issues are considered on appeal when undeveloped.)