Osuna-Samaniego

MEMORANDUM *

Maximino Osuna-Samaniego (“Osuna”) appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and his 70-month prison sentence for possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The district court properly denied Osuna’s motion to suppress statements made during a traffic stop, evidence recovered as a result of the traffic stop, and statements made after the traffic stop. It is undisputed that Spokane County Sheriff Deputies Ballard Bates and Kirk A. Banks properly initiated the traffic stop because they had probable cause to believe Osuna violated Wash. Rev.Code § 46.61.145 by following another vehicle too closely. The deputies’ initial inquiries were reasonably related to the traffic stop. See United States v. Chavez-Valenzuela, *556 268 F.3d 719 , 724 n. 4 (9th Cir.2001), amended by 279 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir.2002). The deputies justifiably expanded the scope of the traffic stop and detained Osuna to seek his consent to search the vehicle because: (1) Osuna drove a car registered to another person, (2) he could not remember the registered owner’s last…

dissenting:

During the course of the traffic stop, the police twice seized Maximino Osuna-Samaniego for purposes of the Fourth Amendment: when they initially pulled over Osuna-Samaniego’s car and when they asked for consent to search the car. For each seizure to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the police needed to have a “particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18 , 101 S.Ct. 690 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981).

This standard was certainly met when the police witnessed Osuna-Samaniego’s car following another vehicle too closely, providing probable cause to believe he had violated Washington traffic laws. See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 , *557 116 S.Ct. 1769 , 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). During that first seizure, the police were entitled to ask Osuna-Samaniego questions “reasonably related” to the grounds for initially stopping him. United States v. Chavez-Valenzuela, 268 F.3d 719, 724 (9th Cir.2001). Going beyond that scope of questioning, however, constituted a further seizure of Osuna-Samaniego, and independently required particularized and objective factors…