United States of America v. Dewayne Geogre Ramdial

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with possession of cocaine.



At the sergeant's request, Ramdial produced his Florida driver's

license. He confirmed that he still lived in Orlando. Sgt. James asked

Ramdial what brought him to Oklahoma. Ramdial said that he had been

attending a tattoo convention in Albuquerque and noted his plans to attend

another tattoo convention in Houston. On further questioning, Ramdial said

that he had borrowed the vehicle from a friend.



Sgt. James returned to his patrol car 17 seconds after 6:17 p.m. The

first thing he did was to call dispatch to check if Ramdial had a valid license,

any outstanding warrants, or a criminal history. At this point in time, Sgt.

James later admitted, he did not have reasonable suspicion that Ramdial

was engaged in illegal activity. While waiting for a call back from dispatch,

Sgt. James conducted further investigation.



The sergeant began by running the Nissan's license plate through a

license-plate recognition database. This database records and makes

searchable the locations and images of vehicles' recent travel on public

roads. When Sgt. James entered the Nissan's plate number, the database

indicated the vehicle had been spotted two days prior in the Texas

panhandle. And then, earlier on the day of the stop, it was located heading

eastbound through Gallup, New Mexico. Gallup is significantly west of

Albuquerque, where Ramdial claimed to have been at the convention. The

database also indicated that the vehicle had made the same trip in previous

months at approximately the same time of the month.2 Next, Sgt. James

conducted an online search for recent tattoo conventions in Albuquerque.

He found nothing.



Thirty-nine seconds after 6:21 p.m. – that is, four minutes and 22

seconds after Sgt. James returned to the patrol car – the dispatcher called

back to report Ramdial had a valid license and no warrants or criminal

history. At this point, Sgt. James determined that the traffic stop was over.

Nonetheless, he concluded that Ramdial "was being deceitful about the true

nature of his trip.” R. I at 85. Sgt. James then reapproached the Nissan. He

asked Ramdial to come with him to the patrol car. Sgt. James had already

requested a K-9 officer come to the scene.



Inside the patrol car, Sgt. James and Ramdial discussed the latter's

travel plans and the purported tattoo convention. Sgt. James asked

Ramdial if there was anything illegal in the Nissan. Ramdial said there was

not. Sgt. James asked for consent to search the vehicle. Ramdial said no.

The K-9 officer arrived at the scene 23 seconds after 6:32 p.m. The

traffic stop had ceased approximately 11 minutes prior. The officer

conducted a K-9 sniff. The dog alerted. Sgt. James then performed a search

of the vehicle. He found approximately two kilograms of cocaine inside.





* * *



The "ultimate touchstone” of the Fourth Amendment is

reasonableness. E.g., Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006).

A reasonable (and therefore constitutionally compliant) traffic stop may

include officer actions that are "'reasonably related in scope' to the 'mission

of the stop.'” United States v. Cortez, 965 F.3d 827, 833 (10th Cir. 2020)

(quoting United States v. Mayville, 955 F.3d 825, 829 (10th Cir. 2020)).

Officers thus may: request a driver's license and registration; run

"requisite” computer checks; issue citations or warnings; and inquire about

travel plans. Id. at 838 (quoting United States v. Pettit, 785 F.3d 1374, 1379

(10th Cir. 2015)). Caselaw is clear that such "ordinary inquiries incident to

[the traffic] stop” do not violate the Fourth Amendment even in the absence

of reasonable suspicion. Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 355 (alteration in original)

(quoting Caballes, 543 U.S. at 408).

Motion to suppress denied.



Affirmed.