United States v. Ramdial

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: September 19, 2025
• Docket: 24-6213
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-6213 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 09/19/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 19, 2025 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 24-6213 (D.C. No. 5:23-CR-00291-JD-1) DEWAYNE GEORGE RAMDIAL, (W.D. Okla.)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before McHUGH, EID, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

A sheriff’s sergeant stopped a vehicle driven by Dewayne George

Ramdial for a minor traffic violation as he passed through Canadian

County, Oklahoma. While waiting on the side of the interstate, the sergeant

conducted an investigation into Ramdial’s activities that was unrelated to

the reason for the stop. This investigation led to the search of the vehicle,

the seizure of two kilograms of cocaine, and – ultimately – Ramdial’s felony

drug conviction and thirty-month prison sentence. Ramdial timely appeals,

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1. Appellate Case: 24-6213 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 09/19/2025 Page: 2

arguing the investigation violated the Fourth Amendment. We determine

that it did not, so we affirm.

I

On May 28, 2023, Defendant-Appellant Dewayne George Ramdial

drove a black Nissan Murano eastbound on Interstate 40 through Canadian

County. Sergeant Maurice James of the Canadian County Sheriff’s Office

was travelling in the same direction a short distance behind. Ramdial

signaled that he would change from the right to the middle lane.

Contemporaneously, he made the lane change. Oklahoma law requires

100 feet of advance notice before a lane change. 1 For this reason, at

6:13 p.m., Sgt. James directed Ramdial to pull to the side of the road. He

complied.

Sgt. James’ dashboard camera recorded the stop. The recording shows

the evening was sunny. Moderate traffic prevailed. Sgt. James read the

Nissan’s license plate number to a county dispatcher. He then approached

the vehicle on the passenger’s side. He noticed that the Nissan had a

specialty license plate honoring veterans, which made Sgt. James think it

was a personal vehicle, not a rental.

1 Sgt. James later testified consistent with his on-scene representation to Ramdial regarding the reason for the stop. Ramdial does not contest the legal basis for the stop. 2 Appellate Case: 24-6213 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 09/19/2025 Page: 3

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

3 Appellate Case: 24-6213 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 09/19/2025 Page: 4

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.

2 Sgt. James later testified that this type of travel was “synonymous”

with drug trafficking. 4 Appellate Case: 24-6213 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 09/19/2025 Page: 5

A grand jury indicted Ramdial on two counts: conspiracy to violate

federal drug law, 21 U.S.C. § 846; and possession of cocaine with intent to

distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Ramdial moved in the district court to

suppress the fruits of the search. The district court, finding no Fourth

Amendment violation, denied the motion. Ramdial entered a conditional

plea of guilty to the second count, thereby preserving his ability to appeal

denial of the suppression motion. 3 The Government dismissed the

remaining count pursuant to the plea agreement. The district court

sentenced Ramdial to 30 months’ imprisonment. He timely appeals. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

II

Ramdial’s appeal presents only one issue: whether Sgt. James

improperly extended the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion in

violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court’s finding to the

contrary, he argues, resulted in an erroneous determination on his motion

to suppress.

A

In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we view the evidence

in the light most favorable to the prevailing party – here, the Government.

3 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2) allows for a defendant

to enter a conditional plea with consent of the court and the government. 5 Appellate Case: 24-6213 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 09/19/2025 Page: 6

United States v. Smith, 531 F.3d 1261, 1265 (10th Cir. 2008). We accept the

district court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Id.

A finding of fact is only clearly erroneous if it lacks factual support in

the record or “if, after reviewing all of the evidence, we are left with the

definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” In re Peterson

Distrib., Inc., 82 F.3d 956, 959 (10th Cir. 1996) (citing Anderson v. City of

Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)). The ultimate determination of

reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is a question of law, which

we review de novo. United States v. Gordon, 168 F.3d 1222, 1225 (10th Cir.

1999).

B

In this appeal, Ramdial argues only that his rights were violated

because Sgt. James prolonged the stop without reasonable suspicion. The

Fourth Amendment provides that a traffic stop may not – absent reasonable

suspicion – be “‘prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete

th[e] mission’ of issuing a ticket” or warning for the violation prompting the

stop. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 350–51 (2015) (alteration in

original) (quoting Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005)). The district

court held that the stop was not extended by Sgt. James’ parallel

investigation and thus no Rodriguez violation occurred. The Government

defends that holding on appeal.

6 Appellate Case: 24-6213 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 09/19/2025 Page: 7

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).

Rodriguez’s application, though, can quickly become fraught due to

the “confused state of Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedent” in this

area. United States v. Hayes, 62 F.4th 1271, 1273 (10th Cir. 2023) (Baldock,

J., concurring). “And, new fact patterns and circumstances can make

[Rodriguez] difficult to apply,” United States v. Baker, 108 F.4th 1241, 1252

(10th Cir. 2024) (Federico, J., dissenting), when determining what actions

are incidental to the stop and what constitutes an unlawful prolonging of

the stop.

7 Appellate Case: 24-6213 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 09/19/2025 Page: 8

Ramdial focuses on United States v. Frazier, which he submits is the

strongest case for his argument that the traffic stop was unlawfully

prolonged. See 30 F.4th 1165 (10th Cir. 2022). In Frazier, a Utah state

trooper effectuated a traffic stop of the defendant-appellant. Id. at 1170.

The trooper questioned Frazier incident to the stop. Id. at 1170–71. When

the trooper returned to his patrol car, he did not begin by filling out a

citation. Id. at 1171. Instead, he made efforts to contact a K-9 officer, first

directly and then via dispatch. Id. The trooper then began work on the

citation. Id. But he soon paused this work to search a license plate

recognition database. Id. We have held that even “de minimis” delays

violate the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 1173 (citing Mayville, 955 F.3d

at 830). And, in Frazier, this court determined that the trooper’s efforts to

arrange a dog sniff and search of the database constituted investigative

detours unlawfully extending the stop. Id. at 1180.

In the present case, the district court found Frazier to be

distinguishable. It reasoned there is no evidence to indicate Sgt. James’

non-traffic inquiries prolonged or added time to the traffic stop. We agree.

When Sgt. James returned to the patrol car, he first called dispatch

about the driver’s license, outstanding warrants, and criminal history. It

was only while waiting for a response from the dispatcher that he engaged

in non-traffic investigative pursuits. He searched the internet for tattoo

8 Appellate Case: 24-6213 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 09/19/2025 Page: 9

conventions and queried the license plate reader database. By the time the

dispatcher called back regarding inquiries incident to the traffic stop, Sgt.

James concluded that he had developed reasonable suspicion. 4

Ramdial protests that this does not tell the whole story. We have

directed law enforcement to remain “diligently engaged in routine tasks

incident to the traffic stop” when reasonable suspicion to extend the stop is

lacking. United States v. Cates, 73 F.4th 795, 808 (10th Cir. 2023), cert.

denied, 144 S. Ct. 1033 (2024). And Ramdial argues that Sgt. James did not

follow this direction. According to Ramdial, Sgt. James could have

undertaken “remaining traffic tasks” while awaiting a response from

dispatch. But there is no indication that any such tasks remained.

Sgt. James testified that he intended only to give Ramdial a verbal warning

in order to conclude the traffic stop. Thus, in conducting a parallel

investigation while awaiting a response from dispatch, Sgt. James “did not

delay the stop at all.” Id. at 808 n.5. Indeed, not a second was wasted.

4 The parties acknowledge that this case does not turn on when Sgt. James developed reasonable suspicion. Thus, we assume for the purposes of this appeal that Sgt. James did not have reasonable suspicion at the time he initially returned to the patrol car, but that he did have it at the time the dispatch officer called back with the results of the warrants inquiry. 9 Appellate Case: 24-6213 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 09/19/2025 Page: 10

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Richard E.N. Federico Circuit Judge