U.S. v. Stewart

In prosecution on drug and firearm charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence gained through traffic stop, even though defendant argued that said stop was prolonged so that police could perform dog sniff that alerted police to presence of drugs in car. Defendant failed to raise instant specific issue in his motion to suppress, and said failure prevented govt. from developing record as to whether officer could have written ticket in less time than it took to call for backup and run dog sniff. Moreover, sixteen minutes from moment of stop to moment of dog alert was not unreasonable to generate ticket for running red light and for completing tasks associated with mission of stop. Also, officer had reasonable suspicion to delay stop in order to conduct dog sniff, where officer knew that defendant was felon and drug trafficker and believed that his fellow officers had just witnessed defendant participate in drug transaction from his car. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying motion to suppress defendant’s confession, even though defendant argued that his negative head nod following Miranda warnings and following request to speak to detectives was sufficient to invoke right to silence. Instant head nod was ambiguous, where defendant refused to clarify said nod, and where defendant had freely spoken to police after receipt of Miranda warnings and prior to said nod.