United States v. Trestyn, 646 F.3d 732

Background

Trestyn (driver) and Herren (passenger) were stopped on Interstate 80 in Wyoming for a missing front license plate (California plates; alleged Wyoming violation of display rules).
The stop occurred in daylight; the officers noted the van’s California registration and questioned travel plans and ownership.
A canine unit alerted to the odor of controlled substances; MDMA was found in the minivan and later confirmed by lab tests.
Herren sought to have California counsel Bustamante admitted pro hac vice and to continue the suppression hearing; the court denied the continuance.
After suppression-related proceedings, the district court denied motions to suppress; later, Herren and Trestyn pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute MDMA and aiding and abetting.
The district court sentenced Trestyn to 110 months and Herren to 70 months; on appeal, the defendants challenge the suppression ruling, pursue ineffective-assistance claims, and address the right to counsel of choice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Herren denied the right to counsel of choice by denying a continuance for pro hac vice admission?	Herren argues denial violated Wheat and Gonzalez-Lopez.	Herren contends delay was necessary to obtain Bustamante.	No abuse of discretion; continuance denied appropriately.
Are the ineffective-assistance claims properly brought on direct appeal or should they be collateralized?	Trestyn and Herren rely on Massaro/ Calderon to seek merits on appeal.	Record inadequate for direct-review of IA claims.	Dismissed without prejudice for lack of developed record.
Was the district court correct to deny suppression of evidence from the minivan search?	Government contends stop supported and detention remained within scope.	Defendants argue the stop ceased basic justification after observing plate; extended detention violated Fourth Amendment.	The stop exceeded its original purpose; suppression reversed.
Was the initial traffic stop justified at inception or did it become impermissible after observing registration details?	Stop justified by missing front plate under Wyoming statute; owner-registered vehicle.	Wyoming statute did not require two plates for nonresident vehicles.	Assumed justified at inception for purposes of appeal; suppression still improper due to extended detention.

Key Cases Cited

Gonzalez-Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (counsel-of-choice right; structural error when denied)
Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988) (counsel-of-choice right; continuance considerations)
United States v. Flanders, 491 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2007) (balancing continuance against interest in fair administration of justice)
Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003) (ineffective-assistance generally collateral; direct appeal limited)
United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928 (10th Cir. 2005) (ineffective-assistance review on direct appeal generally unavailable)
United States v. Galloway, 56 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 1995) (narrow exception to collateral IA claims on direct appeal)
United States v. Hamilton, 510 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2007) (example of addressing IA claims on direct appeal)
United States v. Carr, 80 F.3d 413 (10th Cir. 1996) (IA claims where defendant sought to withdraw guilty plea on direct appeal)
United States v. Castillo-Garcia, 117 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 1997) (claims not properly raised remain unaddressed on appeal)
United States v. Rice, 483 F.3d 1079 (10th Cir. 2007) (stop duration must be tied to purpose; extended detentions require justification)
United States v. McSwain, 29 F.3d 558 (10th Cir. 1994) (analysis of scope of stop after initial justification)
United States v. Edgerton, 438 F.3d 1043 (10th Cir. 2006) (temporary tag illegibility affects continuation of stop)
United States v. Ledesma, 447 F.3d 1307 (10th Cir. 2006) (continued detention permissible when visible registration still violates law)