On May 28, 2025, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. Agena[i], which serves as an excellent review of the law related to prolonged traffic stops and the searching of a passenger’s bag. The relevant facts of Agena, taken directly from the case, are as follows:
This case began with a traffic stop near Waverly, Nebraska, in June 2022. At around 2:00 a.m., Deputy Jason Schnieder and Deputy Taylor Castaneda of the Lancaster County Sheriff’s Office stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation because the driver’s side taillight was not illuminated. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,219(3), (6)(a). The officers also observed that the vehicle did not have license plates. After the vehicle came to a halt, the officers saw the driver lunge toward the passenger side of the vehicle. Deputy Schnieder explained that this action was consistent with the driver attempting to conceal an item or produce a weapon. The officers did not see anything in the driver’s hand during this movement.
The officers approached the stopped vehicle and observed an open alcohol container behind the passenger seat. Deputy Schnieder described it as “an open pouch of alcoholic beverage” that said “alcoholic beverage right on it” with the “bottom[] flared out like there’s liquid inside.” The deputy told the driver, Gary Payton, that the bag of “frozen alcoholic beverage product” “looked about half full.” Payton explained that he was “drinking it at like 2:00 this afternoon” but “didn’t finish it.” Nebraska law forbids any person in the passenger area of a motor vehicle to possess an open alcohol container while the vehicle is located on a state highway. Id. 60-6,211.08(2).
Neither Payton nor Agena, the only passenger, had a valid driver’s license. Payton told the officers that he had recently purchased the vehicle, but the bill of sale he produced did not identify the seller, buyer, or date of purchase. The officers learned that Payton and Agena had met recently and did not know each other well. Deputy Schnieder testified that Agena was “very, very cautious and nervous” throughout the interaction and appeared to be concealing two bags with her legs. Although Payton said that alcohol from the open container had been consumed earlier that day, Agena claimed that it had been consumed a long time ago. The officers also saw in the back seat a butane torch lighter of a type that is sometimes used to light pipes for methamphetamine or crack cocaine.
The officers, suspecting criminal activity, handcuffed Payton and Agena and detained them in the police cruiser. The officers searched Payton’s vehicle and found in Agena’s purse a gallon-sized bag containing several smaller baggies of a crystalline substance. After roadside testing indicated that the substance was methamphetamine, the officers arrested Agena for possession of a controlled substance. Subsequent laboratory analysis determined that the gallon-sized bag contained 170 grams of methamphetamine.[ii]
Agena was subsequently indicted on federal drug violations. She filed a motion to suppress the drugs found in her purse, which the District Court denied. She was convicted at trial. She then appealed the denial of her motion to suppress to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On appeal, regarding the denial of her motion to suppress, Agena argued (1) that the officers unreasonably prolonged the traffic stop, (2) that the search of her purse was unreasonable, and (3) that her detention at the vehicle, as the officers searched, was an unlawful arrest.
Prolonged Traffic Stop
Agena first argued that the officers unreasonably prolonged the traffic stop by investigating matters unrelated to the reason for the stop. She asserted that the officers should have issued the driver traffic citations and released the vehicle and its occupants.
The court of appeals discussed the relevant legal principles and stated
Authority for a seizure on the basis of a traffic violation “ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed.” Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 191 L. Ed. 2d 492 (2015). But “[a]n officer conducting a traffic stop who discovers information leading to reasonable suspicion of an unrelated crime may extend the stop and broaden the investigation.” United States v. Woods, 829 F.3d 675, 679 (8th Cir. 2016).[iii]
The court stated that when the officers observed the open container of alcohol in the vehicle, that provided them with sufficient reasonable suspicion of criminal activity because having an open container of alcohol in the passenger compartment of a vehicle is a violation of Nebraska law. The court then held that, since the officers “observed evidence of a crime unrelated to the traffic violation, it was reasonable for them to extend the stop in order to investigate.”[iv]
The Search of Agena’s Purse
The court next examined if the search of Agena’s purse violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment.
The court first discussed the relevant legal principles and stated
Having observed one open container with alcohol inside [the vehicle], a reasonable officer could believe that there was a fair probability that more open containers were located in the passenger area of the vehicle. The officers thus had probable cause to search the passenger compartment for evidence of that offense. United States v. Mena-Valdez, No. 21-1120, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 37275, 2021 WL 5985319, at *1 (8th Cir. Dec. 17, 2021) (per curiam); see also United States v. Neumann, 183 F.3d 753, 756 (8th Cir. 1999).
The permissible scope of the search extended to “every part of the vehicle and its contents,” including containers, that were capable of concealing evidence of the open container violation. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 825, 102 S. Ct. 2157, 72 L. Ed. 2d 572 (1982).[v]
Thus, the court reasoned that (1) the open container of alcohol, which violated state law, provided the officers with probable cause that more open containers could be in the passenger compartment and (2) the permissible scope of the search is every part of the vehicle, including containers, that could conceal an open container of alcohol. Therefore, Agena’s purse was within the permissible scope of the search, even if the original open container of alcohol observed belonged to the driver because a driver could still hide items in the passenger’s purse. As such, the officers had probable cause to search Agena’s purse.
Unlawful Arrest
Lastly, concerning the motion to suppress, Agena argued that her detention at the vehicle during the search was an unlawful arrest because the traffic violations were related to the driver, thus she should have been allowed to leave.
However, the court of appeals noted that even if Agena were allowed to leave, she would not have been permitted to take her purse prior to its search because officers had probable cause to search the purse, as it was lawfully within the scope of the search of the vehicle.
As such, the court of appeals held
The seizure of methamphetamine is not a fruit of Agena’s detention, so suppression of that evidence is not warranted even assuming that she should not have been detained.[vi]
Thus, the methamphetamine would have been discovered whether or not Agena was detained and therefore, the seizure was not the product of her detention. Because of this, suppression was not warranted. It should be noted that the court did not hold that Agena should not have been detained; rather, for the sake of argument, they simply reasoned that even if Agena should not have been detained, the methamphetamine would have still been discovered.
Therefore, the court of appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress.
Note: Court holdings can vary significantly between jurisdictions. As such, it is advisable to seek the advice of a local prosecutor or legal adviser regarding questions on specific cases. This article is not intended to constitute legal advice on a specific case.
_________________________________________________________
[i] No. 24-1323 (8th Cir. May 28, 2025)
[ii] Id. at 1-4
[iii] Id. at 5 (emphasis added)
[iv] Id.
[v] Id. at 6 (emphasis added)
[vi] Id. at 7
