United States v. Moore, No. 14-6014 (10th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant Tracey Moore appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search of his vehicle following a traffic stop. Moore was pulled over for speeding, for which he was issued a warning. However, an Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper continued to detain Moore in order to conduct a dog sniff. The dog alerted to Moore’s vehicle and a subsequent search revealed a sawed-off shotgun and ammunition in the trunk. Moore moved to suppress all evidence discovered during the stop. After the district court denied Moore’s motion, he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition. On appeal, Moore argued the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the trooper lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him after the purpose of the stop was met. He also argued his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the narcotics-detection dog jumped into his vehicle. “Reasonable suspicion is not, and is not meant to be, an onerous standard.” The Tenth Circuit, after review of the district court judgment, found that Moore’s nervousness, his admission that he had been in trouble before, and the recent addition of his name to the vehicle’s registration, when considered together, were sufficient to indicate criminal activity. Accordingly, the trooper did not violate Moore’s Fourth Amendment rights when he continued to detain Moore after the purpose of the stop was completed. With regard to the dog's search, the Court found that "Jester" properly alerted before he jumped inside Moore’s vehicle. A responding trooper testified that when he was doing his first pass around the exterior of Moore’s vehicle, Jester “gave a positive alert” with “a really good change of behavior” by snapping his head around before he jumped into the window of Moore’s car. Finding no reversible error in the district court's judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.