United States v. Lopez, 849 F.3d 921

Background

Trooper Krause stopped a rental Dodge Avenger for speeding; Angela was driving and Adrienne was a passenger. A dashboard camera recorded the stop.
Angela initially produced a California DMV receipt (reportedly for a lost license); dispatcher later told Krause Angela had a valid California license and no criminal history.
During the stop Adrienne spoke most, made comments (e.g., “Don’t look back there, it’s a mess”), and said she needed marijuana; both women refused consent to search.
After issuing a warning for speeding, Krause briefly reapproached and asked more questions; Defendants declined a vehicle search and Krause detained them while waiting (~20 minutes) for a drug-detection dog.
A narcotics dog alerted inside the vehicle on Adrienne’s purse; Adrienne admitted possessing marijuana, Krause searched further and found vacuum-sealed packages in a cooler containing ~1,766 grams of methamphetamine.
District court denied motions to suppress; defendants were convicted for possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy. Tenth Circuit reversed, holding the continued detention to await the dog lacked reasonable suspicion and suppressing the evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether continued detention to await a drug dog was supported by reasonable suspicion	Krause had articulable facts (nervous passenger, comment about backseat, implausible travel plans) that together justified prolonging the stop	Continued detention lacked particularized, objective facts rising above innocent explanations; initial stop covered only speeding	Continued detention was unlawful—totality of facts did not supply reasonable suspicion to wait for dog
Whether Adrienne can challenge the search (standing / fruit of detention)	Government: DeLuca means passenger may lack standing because she wasn’t driver/owner; evidence not result of her detention	Adrienne: dog alerted to her purse and admission led to search — direct causal nexus between detention of her property and discovery	Adrienne has standing; search flowed from the dog’s alert to her purse, so suppression remedy applies to her
Whether probable cause existed to arrest Angela for driving without a license, thereby justifying the detention	Government: even without reasonable suspicion, probable cause to arrest Angela for violating the license-possession statute would validate the detention	Angela: she presented a DMV receipt and dispatcher confirmed a valid license; officer knew she could not be convicted under the Kansas statute	No probable cause to arrest: dispatcher’s information that Angela had a valid license undermined any basis to arrest
Whether the initial traffic stop itself was lawful	Government: initial stop for speeding was valid	Defendants: do not contest the validity of the initial stop	Initial stop was lawful; issue is only the extended detention

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Pettit, 785 F.3d 1374 (10th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
Arizona v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (reasonable-suspicion totality-of-circumstances test)
United States v. Davis, 636 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 2011) (scope of traffic stop and travel-plan inconsistencies may bear on reasonable suspicion)
United States v. Simpson, 609 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2010) (lies, evasions, inconsistencies contribute to reasonable suspicion)
United States v. DeLuca, 269 F.3d 1128 (10th Cir. 2001) (passenger standing and nexus required to suppress fruits of unlawful detention)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (objective basis for arrest means officer’s subjective intent is irrelevant)
United States v. Wood, 106 F.3d 942 (10th Cir. 1997) (unusual travel plans alone do not establish criminality)
United States v. Salzano, 158 F.3d 1107 (10th Cir. 1998) (travel choices may have innocent explanations; not dispositive)
United States v. Edwards, 632 F.3d 633 (10th Cir. 2011) (information learned by police that destroys probable cause prevents lawful arrest)