Ringgold

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant-Appellant John Devin Ring-gold appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized as the result of a search of his vehicle during a routine traffic stop. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

“[T]he scope of an investigative detention must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification, and may last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose *118 of the stop.” United States v. Chavez-Valenzuela, 268 F.3d 719, 724 (9th Cir.2001). An officer may, however, expand the scope of his inquiry beyond matters reasonably related to the stop “if he notices particularized, objective factors arousing his suspicion.” Id.

Under the totality of the circumstances presented in this case, reasonable suspicion existed to justify the additional inquiries made during the course of the traffic stop: the absence of the car’s registered owner, the overwhelming smell of the air freshener, the misalignment of the airbag compartment with the car’s console, and Ringgold’s extreme nervousness. See, e.g., United States v. Rojas-Millan, 234 F.3d 464, 468-70 (9th Cir.2000). Ring-gold’s responses to the initial inquiries,…