United States v. Dwayne Canada

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 20a0547n.06
No. 19-6283
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) FILED
) Sep 23, 2020
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
)
v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE
) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
DWAYNE DAVONTE CANADA, ) COURT FOR THE EASTERN
) DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
Before: GUY, CLAY, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Dwayne Canada entered a conditional guilty plea for
possession of a mixture containing a fentanyl analogue and heroin with intent to distribute, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He now argues that the police detained him unlawfully and
that the district court should have suppressed evidence obtained as a result of that detention. We
reject Canada’s arguments and affirm.
In August 2018, Laurel County police sergeant Chris Edwards was conducting surveillance
at a bus station in London, Kentucky. He observed a car parked at the edge of the parking lot and
saw that the car’s only occupant, a male in the driver’s seat, often looked around and frequently
talked into a cell phone. A bus then arrived. Most passengers disembarked and began walking
towards the bus station entrance, but one walked instead to the parked car and entered on the
passenger side. Soon the car drove off and turned north onto I-75. Edwards followed and observed
No. 19-6283, United States v. Canada
the car straddling the fog line along the shoulder. He suspected a DUI and stopped the car around
9:57 a.m.
The driver’s documentation identified him as Danny Johnson, but the passenger said he
had no identification. Edwards directed Johnson out of the car for questioning, during which
Johnson identified his passenger as “Chris” and said they were travelling to Crab Orchard,
Kentucky. Edwards next questioned the passenger, who identified himself as Dwayne Canada and
said the pair were traveling to Lexington, Kentucky. Edwards asked Canada why Johnson had
identified him as Chris; Canada said he was sometimes referred to by that name. Edwards asked
why Canada would go to Lexington after the bus had already stopped there before arriving in
London; Canada offered no response. When Edwards followed up with Johnson, he denied that
the pair were going to Lexington. Edwards then asked to search the car, and Johnson consented.
That search revealed nothing, but during it Detective Daniel Grigsby arrived with a drug-
sniffing dog. The dog alerted on the passenger door. The officers opened that door and the dog
put its nose on the passenger seat where Canada had been sitting. Officers again searched the car
and found no drugs. They also searched Canada’s person, however, and found a bag of drugs in
his underwear. A crime lab later determined that the bag contained heroin and acetyl fentanyl.
The government thereafter charged Canada with possession of a mixture containing heroin
and a fentanyl analogue with intent to distribute. Canada moved to suppress the evidence found
during the search. The district court held an evidentiary hearing at which Officer Edwards and
Detective Grigsby testified. The court later denied the motion, and Canada pled guilty but reserved
the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The district court sentenced Canada to 60
months’ imprisonment. This appeal followed.
-2-
No. 19-6283, United States v. Canada
Canada challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We review the
district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its findings of fact for clear error, viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the district court’s decision. See United States v. Collazo,
818 F.3d 247, 253 (6th Cir. 2016).
An officer may extend a traffic stop beyond the time necessary to address the initial
infraction if, during the stop, the officer develops a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. See
Hernandez v. Boles, 949 F.3d 251, 256 (6th Cir. 2020). “Reasonable suspicion requires specific
and articulable facts, which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably
warrant the continued detention[.]” United States v. Bell, 555 F.3d 535, 540 (6th Cir. 2009).
The question here is whether Officer Edwards had reasonable suspicion to detain Johnson
and Canada after they had answered Edwards’s initial questions. Canada concedes that the initial
questions themselves were lawful, but argues that the stop should have ended once Edwards
determined that Johnson was sober. By that time, however, several circumstances supported the
district court’s determination of reasonable suspicion. First, as the district court found, Canada
and Johnson gave conflicting answers about their destination on the drive. Nor could Canada
explain why he was on his way to Lexington when his bus had already stopped there. Conflicting
or implausible explanations of travel plans can support reasonable suspicion. See United States v.
Winters, 782 F.3d 289, 299 (6th Cir. 2015). The pair likewise gave conflicting responses about
Canada’s name; and Canada himself lacked any identification, which can support a determination
of reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Shank, 543 F.3d 309, 316 (6th Cir. 2008). Viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the district court’s decision, these circumstances gave
rise to reasonable suspicion that criminal activity of some kind might be afoot. See United States
v. Lott, 954 F.3d 919, 925 (6th Cir. 2020).
-3-
No. 19-6283, United States v. Canada
Canada also argues that officers lacked probable cause to search his person,
notwithstanding that the drug-sniffing canine had just alerted upon his seat. But Canada also
concedes that, in the district court, he did not contest Detective Grigsby’s testimony that Grigsby
searched Canada with his consent. Canada’s challenge to the search of his person is therefore
waived.
Finally, Canada argues that his trial counsel was ineffective precisely because counsel
failed to dispute Canada’s consent to the search of his person. But we typically do not adjudicate
ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal, leaving them instead for adjudication on a § 2255
motion, when the parties can develop the relevant record. See United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d
976, 986 (6th Cir. 2005). Canada gives us no reason to depart from that approach here.
The district court’s judgment is affirmed.
-4-