(Ret., specially assigned).
Bеrnard Everton McKoy, the appellant, was charged with possession of cocaine, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and bringing into Maryland a mixture containing 28 grams or greater of cocaine. Prior to trial, he filed a motion to suppress physical evidence seized by the police and statements he made. The motion was heard and denied by the Honorable Edward D.E. Rollins, Jr. Appellant was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Cecil County (Donaldson C. Cole, Jr., J.) of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and bringing into Maryland a mixture containing 28 grams or greater of cocaine. 1 Judge Cole imposed concurrent eight year terms of imprisonment on appellant.
Appellant’s initial appeal to this Court was dismissed as untimely. Appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief seeking, inter alia, a belated appeal. On or about July 7, 1998, a Consent Order was entered, appellant’s petition was granted, and apрellant was permitted to note a belated appeal. This appeal was noted on July 8, 1998. 2 Appellant presents two questions on appeal:
*92 I. Did the trial court err in denying his motion to suppress?
II. Did the trial court commit plain error in instructing the jury that, in effect, actual knowledge of the presence and nature of a drug was not a necessary element of the charges against him?
Perceiving no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the circuit court.
FACTS
The following facts were presented at the motion to suppress:
At approximately 2:50 p.m. on February 7, 1996, Maryland State Trooper James Nolan stopped a 1996 Ford Taurus traveling southbound on 1-95 in Cecil County, Maryland. The reason for the stop was that the vehicle was traveling 77 miles per hour in a 65 mile per hour zone. Angela Kaiser was the driver of the car. Appellant was the vehicle’s sole passenger.
Ms. Kaiser brought the Taurus to a stop. Trooper Nolan parked behind it. The trooper exited his car and walked to a point betwеen the two vehicles. Ms. Kaiser had stopped somewhat close to the roadway; Trooper Nolan “motioned” her to exit the Taurus. Ms. Kaiser exited the car and walked to where the trooper was standing. Trooper Nolan told her that he had stopped her because she had been speeding. According to the trooper, she became “very nervous” and “overapologetic.” She explained that the vehicle she was driving was a rental vehicle and that she was not familiar with it.
Officer Nolan asked to see Ms. Kaiser’s license and the rental agreement for the Taurus. Ms. Kaiser told the trooper that she had a valid Maryland license but that she did not have it with her. She also told him that she would have to get the rental agreement from appellant. Ms. Kaiser told Trooper Nolan that she had been introduced to appellant by her boyfriend but that she did not know his name. She stated *93 that they had come from visiting appellant’s sister in Connecticut and that they had stayed in Connecticut for a couple of hours. She did not know appellant’s sister’s name.
Ms. Kaiser retrieved the rental agreement and gave it to Trooper Nolan. Ms. Kaiser was not an authorized driver of the vehicle. Appellant was. Trooper Nolan returned to his vehicle and called the dispatcher to check on the status of Ms. Kaiser’s driver’s license.
Just after Trooper Nolan had finished speaking to the dispatcher, Mаryland State Trooper Christopher Tideberg arrived at the site. Trooper Nolan asked Trooper Tideberg to get identification from appellant. According to Trooper Nolan, the purpose of checking appellant’s identification was “to see, if [Ms. Kaiser] didn’t come back with a valid license or had no license, someone could drive the car.” Trooper Tide-berg obtained appellant’s driver’s license, and Trooper Nolan called the dispatcher to check on the status of the license.
Trooper Nolan then approached appellant and asked where he and Ms. Kaiser had come from and where they were going. Appellant told the trooper that they had been to Connecticut to see his sister and that they had been there for two days. Appellant became upset and asked the trooper to “just write [Ms. Kaiser] a ticket and let [them] go.”
Trooper Tideberg had a K-9 dog in his car. Because of Ms. Kaiser’s nervousness, and the inconsistent statements about the length of time Ms. Kaiser and appellant had stayed in Connecticut, Trooper Nolan asked Trooper Tideberg to conduct a K-9 scan of the car. At that time, Trooper Nolan had not received any information in response to his request for license checks on Ms. Kaiser and appellant.
Appellant was outside the car before Trooper Tidebеrg conducted the scan. It is, however, not clear whether appellant exited the vehicle on his own or whether he was asked to do so by one of the officers. 3 Trooper Tideberg stated that *94 “the procedure that we follow with state police K-9” is that the occupants are to be outside the vehicle prior to a K-9 scan. The trooper brought the dog to the right rear quarter panel of the Taurus and began the scan. The dog “alerted” at the right rear wheel well, indicating that he detеcted the odor of illegal drugs. Officer Tideberg had the dog continue the scan. When the dog reached the passenger front door handle, he sat down, which was definitive response. Officer Tideberg searched the vehicle and found a quantity of cocaine inside a gym bag in the trunk of the vehicle. The gym bag also contained women’s clothing.
At the time the K-9 alerted, Trooper Nolan had not completed writing the traffic citations for Ms. Kaiser and had not yet received a response regarding the validity of appellant’s driver’s license. 4
The following evidence was produced at trial:
At trial, Troopers Nolan and Tideberg testified about the stop and search of the Taurus. The testimony was substantially similar to that presented at the motion to suppress. Trooper Nolan also testified that the Taurus had been rented at the Fort Lauderdale International Airport at 8:12 p.m. on February 5, 1996, and that Ms. Kaiser had not made eye contact with him when he stopped her. He testified that her nervousness аnd failure to make eye contact were not typical for someone stopped for driving 77 miles per hour in a 65 mile per hour zone.
Trooper Nolan stated that he had not asked for backup. He explained the Trooper Tideberg “just rolled up on [him].” Trooper Nolan also testified that two fingerprints were found *95 on the gym bag but that they did not belong to either appellant or Ms. Kaiser. In addition, he testified that, at the State Police Barracks after her arrеst, Ms. Kaiser said that she had never been to Connecticut.
Trooper Tideberg testified that there was one fingerprint on the bag containing the cocaine and that it was not Ms. Kaiser’s or appellant’s. The trooper stated that the fingerprint “most likely was [his].” The trooper stated that, when he searched the car, he found a traffic citation with appellant’s name that had been issued the previous day in North Carolina. Trooper Tideberg also testified that, at the barracks, he searched appellant and found an envelope with handwritten directions to a place in New York.
Trooper Robert Shelly testified as an expert in the field of narcotics. Trooper Shelly stated that the cocaine seized from the gym bag weighed 726.5 grams and that it had a street value of approximately $72,000. He further testified that the quantity of cocaine seized indicated that it was intended for distribution rather than for personal use.
Ms. Kaiser and appellant both testified about how the cocaine came to be in the Taurus. Not surprisingly, each testified that the other was responsible for the cocaine.
Ms. Kaiser testified for the State. According to Ms. Kaiser, she had met appellant the night before they were stopped by Trooper Nolan. She said she was introduced to appellant in Frederick, Maryland by her ex-boyfriend’s roommate, a man named “Yellow.” At that time, she did not have a place of her own to stay and was staying at different places with friends. Appellant was going to New York and she decided to go along for the ride. She thought that “Yellow” was going with them.
Before they went to New York, they went to Washington, D.C., where she changed clothes and got a gym bag with clothes to bring with her. When they left Washington, “Yellow” did not come with them.
According to Ms. Kaiser, the two drove to New Jersey and spent the night in a motel. The next morning, appellant left *96 the motel for about five minutes to make a telephone call. When he returned, they drove to New York. At one point, appellant stopped at a supermarket and brought out a brown bag. He gave it to Ms. Kaiser and asked her to put it in her bag. He then took the bag out of her hand, put it in her gym bag, and put the gym bag in the trunk.
On the drive home, they stopped to get gas and something to eat. Appellant asked her to drive, and she agreed to do so. She was then stopped for speeding. When Trooper Nolan stopрed her, appellant told her to say that she had been visiting his sister in Connecticut and that they were driving to Florida.
Ms. Kaiser stated that she thought there might be marijuana in the brown bag, but she had no idea that the bag contained cocaine.
Ms. Kaiser conceded that she had initially lied to the police but said that she did so because she was afraid of appellant. She also testified that she was initially charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine and importation of cocaine but that she had entered into a plea agreement whereby she would plead guilty only to possession of cocaine. Ms. Kaiser also conceded that, prior to traveling to New York with appellant, she had lived with a man who had been convicted of drug offenses.
Appellant testified that in February, 1996, he was living in Pembrook Pines, Florida. A friend of his, named “Yellow-man” had come to Florida to visit him for about a week and a half. “Yellowman” lived in Washington, D.C. and had flown from Washington, D.C. in a Value Jet, but was afraid to fly back. He wanted appellant to rent a car and drive back with him, but appellant did not have a credit card and did not want to spend the time away from his family. On February 5,1996, however, his sister called him and told him that his daughter’s mother, who lived in Connecticut, had had a stroke. A friend agreed to rent the car for him, and appellant agreed that he would drive the car.
*97 According to appellant, he and “Yellowman” drove to Washington, D.C. After stoрping there for a few hours, they drove to Frederick, Maiyland, where Yellowman introduced him to Ms. Kaiser. Yellowman asked him to take Ms. Kaiser to New York. He told appellant that she had stayed with some people there and that she had some clothes to pick up. Appellant agreed to drive her. Yellowman wrote out directions to the place Ms. Kaiser was to go.
Appellant and Ms. Kaiser first drove to D.C., where Ms. Kaiser changed her clothes. They then drove to New Jersey, where they spent the night in a motel. The next morning, appellant drove to his sister’s house in Norwalk, Connecticut. His sister was not home, but he knew where she left her housekey, so he let himself inside. He called his daughter, but was told that she was out of town. He then drove Ms. Kaiser to New York, following the directions Yellowman had given him.
They arrived at the location to which Yellowman had directed him and appellant parked the vehicle. Ms. Kaiser left the car for approximately 45 minutes. When she returned, she was carrying a gym bag. She asked him to put the gym bag in the trunk so that no one would steal it. They then started back to D.C. so that appellant could drop Ms. Kaiser off. According to appellant, he did not know what was in the gym bag. Appellant denied that he had told Trooper Nolan that he had been in Connecticut for two days. Appellant also stated that he was not upset because Ms. Kaiser was getting a ticket but because the stop had lastеd almost an hour.
DISCUSSION
Appellant’s first contention is that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. At the suppression hearing, appellant relied upon our decision in
State v. Wilson,
The State argues that the contention that appellant presents here is unpreserved because appellant did not raise it in the motions court. It further argues that the cases appellant cites are distinguishable from the present case because, here, the purpose of the traffic stop had not been completed before the dog alerted to the presence of drugs in the vehicle.
Appellant, in a reply brief, argues that we should consider the merits of his contention despite his failure to raise it in the motions court. He argues that he could not be expected to foresee that Wilson would be overturned and that the cases upon which he does rely were decided after the date of his motion hearing.
We agree that appellant could not be expected to foresee that
Wilson
would be overruled. Nothing prevented appellant, however, from arguing at the mоtions hearing that the duration of the stop was too long. Although the cases appellant cites were decided after his motions hearing,
Munafo v. State,
Even if we were to consider appellant’s argument to be founded on his reading of Pryor as holding that a traffic stop of twenty or twenty-five minutes is per se unreasonable, we would find no merit in that contention.
In
Munafo,
we stated that the United States Supreme Court had recognized that the detention of an automobile and its oecupant(s) constitutes a “seizure” within thе meaning of the Fourth Amendment, “even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief.”
Appellant states in his reply brief that “[t]he relevant question is not whether the officers had received the information from the dispatcher and issued Kaiser the ticket and *100 warning at the time the cocaine was seized; the relevant question is whether more time passed between the initial stop and the seizure of the cocaine than was reasonably necessary to investigate Kaiser’s license status and issue her a ticket and warning.” We, however, do not see the two questions as entirely independent.
In
Pryor,
we held that a motorist who is subjected to a traffic stop for a minor traffic violation “cannot be detained at the scene of the stop longer than it takes — or reasonably should take — to issue a citation for the traffic violation that the motorist committed.”
We made the same point in
Graham v. State, supra,
In fact, the United States Supreme Court has expressly rejected a “bright-line” rule governing the duration of traffic stops.
See United States v. Sharpe,
In the present case there was no suggestion of any delay in Trooper Nolan’s request for the licensing information of either Ms. Kaiser or appellant. Further, once Trooper Nolan learned that Ms. Kaiser did not have a driver’s license in her possession and that she was not an authorized driver of the rental car, it was within the purpose of the traffic stop for the trooper to check appellant’s license. 5 Trooper Nolan had not completed writing the citations for Ms. Kaiser at the time the K-9 alerted to the presence of drugs in the vehicle, and he had not yet received a resрonse to his request regarding the validity of appellant’s license at the time of the scan. Trooper Nolan did not detain appellant and Ms. Kaiser any longer than reasonably necessary to determine whether Ms. Kaiser had a valid license. Accordingly, the K-9 scan did not violate appellant’s rights, and the trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress.
II.
Appellant’s second question is whether the trial court committed plain error in instructing the jury.
The trial court instructed the jury:
Now in this casе, let me tell you what you are dealing with first. In all these cases, they are drags [sic] cases, and as an element of the offenses charged, the accused in order to be found guilty must know of both the presence and general character or illicit nature of a substance. They have to know or should have known that it was an illegal *102 drug — not necessarily cocaine, but any illegal drug. Of course, such knowledge may be proven by circumstances and inferences drawn therefrom.
Now I am reading right from the statute. A person who brings into this state — I’m going to ad lib — a mixture containing 28 grams or greater of cocaine is guilty of a crime— that is a smuggling statute. If you know or should have known it was cocaine and you got caught bringing in 28 grams or greater of a mixture of cocaine into the state from another area, then that’s all that’s needed to be proven.
(Emphasis added.)
Appellant states that the above instruction is incorrect. Citing
Dawkins v. State,
The State responds, as a preliminary matter, that appellant failed to preserve a claim that the instruction was erroneous because he did not object to the instruction in the trial court. The State also contends that, in fact, actual knowledge of the nature of the drug is not required in order for appellant to be convicted of the smuggling offense. The State further contends that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that appellant had actual knowledge of the cocaine in the vehicle.
We need not consider whether, in fact, the trial court’s instructiоn constituted error. Appellant acknowledges that he made no objection to the instruction and that the issue, therefore, is not preserved for appellate review. Maryland Rule 4-325(e). He asks us, however, to exercise extraordinary discretion by way of noticing what he alleges to be “plain error,” notwithstanding his failure to preserve the issues. We
*103
decline to do so.
Stockton v. State,
JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED.
COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT.
Notes
. After the jury announced its verdict on the charges of possession with intent to distribute and bringing into the State a mixture of coсaine in the amount of 28 grams or greater, the trial court stated that there was no need to hear the verdict on the possession count "because they merge."
. The Consent Order is not dated. It was apparently attached to the Notice of Appeal which certified service to the State’s Attorney and the Attorney General’s Criminal Appeal Division on July 8. Both the Consent Order and Notice of Appeal were docketed on July 13, 1998.
. Trooper Nolan testified thаt Trooper Tideberg "probably” asked appellant to get out of the car, but that he did not hear him do so. *94 Trooper Tideberg stated that, to his belief, he did not ask appellant to get out of the car. Appellant contended that one of the troopers had ordered him out of the car. The motions court believed that it was not necessary to decide whether one of the officers had done so.
. Ms. Kaiser did have a valid driver’s license. Troopеr Nolan testified that "prior to the K-9 scan” he had not yet learned whether Ms. Kaiser had a valid license. It is not clear at precisely what point during the stop he learned that her license was valid.
. Even if the stated purpose was pretextual, the trooper’s conduct would not be invalidated because (1) he had probable cause to make the traffic stop, and (2) the K-9 scan was performed before the trooper was able to determine whether the driver had a valid license. "Subjective intentions play no role in the ordinary, probable cause analysis."
Whren et al. v. United States,