US v Holt Effectively Overruled in Traffic Stop Case

U.S. v. Wallace, 2005 WL 3120637 (11/23/05) - Another bad traffic stop case. A police officer can ask whatever questions s/he wants as long as the questioning does not extend the length of the detention. Without mentioning U.S. v. Holt, 264 F.3d 1215, 1230 910th Cir. 2001)(en banc), the 3 judge panel effectively holds that the latest S.Ct. case of Muehler v. Mena, 125 S.Ct. 1465 (2005), overrules the en banc Holt case, which held that the constitutionality of a detention is determined not only by its length but also by the manner in which it is carried out. So much for that. The 10th also holds that the encounter after the officer handed back the SUV-related documents was ever so consensual because the officer didn't display his weapon, touch the driver or use a commanding tone of voice indicating compliance might be compelled. Although the officer thought he needed probable cause, he only needed reasonable suspicion to detain the SUV and its attached trailer to wait for a drug-sniffing dog that was to arrive in 20 to 30 minutes. The officer had reasonable suspicion because: (1) "first and foremost," there was a 4 to 6 inch gap between the trailer's floor and the bottom of the trailer, indicating a hidden compartment; (2) the defendants were hauling a small motorcycle in an oversized trailer from Maryland to California for a seven day trip ["implausible travel plans can contribute to reasonable suspicion"];(3) the driver and passenger made inconsistent statements about whether they were actual cousins or "like" cousins; and (4) the driver said the motorcycle in the trailer was a Yamaha when it really was a Honda. Plus, no relief for non-constitutional plain error under Booker.

U.S. v. Jefferson, 2005 WL 3134075 (11/23/05) - No relief for 2255 movant where his claim that attorney told him he couldn't be sentenced based on more than the quantity of drugs found on him was contradicted by the plea agreement and the plea colloquy.