United States v. Moore, 795 F.3d 1224

Trooper Matt Villines stopped Tracey Moore for speeding (73 in a 70 zone); Moore was issued a warning and produced California license/registration.
After returning documents and completing the warning, Villines asked additional questions; Moore initially consented to more questioning but refused consent to a vehicle search.
Villines then announced he would detain Moore for a narcotics-detection dog sniff; Trooper Ryan Fike arrived ~2.5 minutes later with dog Jester.
While Jester circled the exterior, he snapped his head, returned to the driver’s-side window, and jumped into the open window; troopers extracted the dog and searched the car.
No drugs were found, but a sawed-off shotgun and ammunition were located in the trunk; Moore was arrested and charged under § 922(g)(1) and related counts.
Moore moved to suppress, arguing (1) continued detention after the stop ended lacked reasonable suspicion, and (2) the dog’s entry into the car constituted an unconstitutional search; the district court denied suppression and Moore reserved appeal after pleading guilty to one count.

Issue	Moore's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether continued detention after the traffic-stop tasks were completed was lawful	Villines lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain Moore after the warning was issued	Trooper had reasonable suspicion based on Moore’s pronounced nervousness, admission of prior trouble, and recent addition of his name to the vehicle registration	Afforded to government: totality of circumstances (nervousness, prior record admission, recent registration) supplied reasonable suspicion to continue detention
Whether the dog’s entry into the vehicle was an unlawful search absent probable cause	Jester’s jump into the car was a search by law enforcement and was not preceded by a valid alert/probable cause	Jester gave a positive alert before entry; an alert (not final trained indication) establishes probable cause; dog’s leap was instinctual and no manipulation by officers occurred	Afforded to government: dog’s alert provided probable cause; entry did not render the search unconstitutional

Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (continued detention after traffic tasks requires independent reasonable suspicion)
United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (reasonable suspicion assessed under the totality of the circumstances)
United States v. Santos, 403 F.3d 1120 (10th Cir. 2005) (prior criminal history alone insufficient for reasonable suspicion; may be weighed with other factors)
United States v. Simpson, 609 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2010) (officer questions not related to stop are permissible so long as they do not prolong the stop)
United States v. Williams, 403 F.3d 1203 (10th Cir. 2005) (a canine alert supplies probable cause to search a vehicle)
United States v. Parada, 577 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 2009) (a dog’s alert, not necessarily a final trained indication, can establish probable cause)
United States v. Chavez, 534 F.3d 1338 (10th Cir. 2008) (probable cause to search a vehicle permits searching the entire vehicle, including the trunk)
Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987) (physical manipulation of property to discover evidence can be a Fourth Amendment search)
Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334 (2000) (tactile manipulation of luggage is a search requiring justification)