United States v. McKenzie, 532 F. App'x 793

Amtrak passenger Richard McKenzie was investigated after an Amtrak ticket was escalated to the DEA via a Passenger Named Record (PNR).
The PNR indicated McKenzie traveled one-way from Flagstaff to New York City, purchased by a third party, in the most expensive sleeper, triggering law enforcement review.
Agents approached and spoke with McKenzie; he allowed initial questioning and showed his ticket, then allowed a luggage search.
McKenzie refused to consent to a canine search of three heavy cereal boxes, and withdrew outside to smoke; agents obtained identity verification and alerted him of a dog sniff plan.
A dog later alerted to drugs in the cereal boxes; agents obtained a warrant and recovered approximately 7.6 pounds of cocaine from the boxes.
McKenzie was indicted for possession with intent to distribute 500 or more grams of cocaine; multiple suppression and in limine motions were resolved in district court before trial.
At trial, a jury convicted McKenzie; he was sentenced to 262 months in prison and four years of supervised release; he timely appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the initial encounter violated the Fourth Amendment.	McKenzie argues lack of reliable information and no valid basis for reasonable suspicion.	McKenzie contends the Amtrak tip was vague and unreliable; officer lacked sufficient basis.	No Fourth Amendment violation; encounter was consensual.
Whether the Confrontation Clause was violated by testimony about the Amtrak agent and PNR.	Exclusion of the agent’s identity and PNR should sustain confrontation rights; testimony should be barred.	Argument hinges on whether the information was admitted as hearsay or through proper cross-examination.	No Confrontation Clause violation; any complained-of testimony was elicited by McKenzie’s cross-examination and district court properly limited in limine rulings.

United States v. Mendez, 514 F.3d 1035 (10th Cir. 2008) (confrontation and suppression standards cited)
United States v. Parikh, 858 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. 1988) (confrontation clause not implicated when defendant seeks to introduce hearsay other than testimony)
United States v. Jackson, 381 F.3d 984 (10th Cir. 2004) (PNR disclosure and standing principles for business records)
United States v. Moffett, 84 F.3d 1291 (10th Cir. 1996) (PNR as business records; standing of passenger not established)
Burnett v. SW. Bell Tel., L.P., 555 F.3d 906 (10th Cir. 2009) (procedural preservation and appeal waivers noted)
Been v. O.K. Indus., Inc., 495 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2007) (arguments may be waived for failure to provide necessary documents)
Cavanaugh v. Woods Cross City, 718 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2013) (abuse of discretion standard for motions in limine)