United States v. Davis

Case: 25-10282 Document: 90-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

____________ United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

No. 25-10282

FILED January 30, 2026

Summary Calendar

____________ Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Brian Lamont Davis,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:23-CR-76-1

______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Brian Davis appeals his conviction of possession with intent to distrib- ute cocaine. He challenges the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and contends that the officer unreasonably prolonged the traffic stop to wait for a canine sniff.

We review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual Case: 25-10282 Document: 90-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/30/2026

No. 25-10282 determinations for clear error. United States v. Montes, 602 F.3d 381, 384 (5th Cir. 2010). Contrary to Davis’s assertions, it is well settled that officers may “ask about the purpose and itinerary of the driver’s trip,” United States v. Fishel, 467 F.3d 855, 857 (5th Cir. 2006), and may question the occupants of the vehicle—even on unrelated topics—so long as those inquiries do not pro- long the stop, Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 349 (2015).

The questioning of Davis and his companion was fully within the scope of the detention justified by the traffic stop, particularly after the officer had ascertained that the car had been rented by a third party and Davis and the passenger had given conflicting versions of their itinerary. The officer’s increasing suspicion was also fueled by the faint smell of suspected mari- huana and Davis’s nervousness, his leaving a source city for narcotics, travel- ing on a known drug corridor, and carrying minimal luggage. The officer had a right to rely on experience in concluding that such actions indicate that an individual may be lying. See United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 508 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Accordingly, the traffic stop was not prolonged in vio- lation of the Fourth Amendment.

AFFIRMED.