United States of America v. Ray Cornelius Calvert

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2405
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Ray Cornelius Calvert
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana
____________
Submitted: October 20, 2025
Filed: November 12, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Ray Calvert was driving a rental car when an Arkansas state trooper stopped
him for illegal lane changes. While waiting for dispatch to run criminal history
reports, the passenger who rented the car consented to a search. The trooper found

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
bundles of methamphetamine in the glove box. After the district court1 denied
Calvert’s motion to suppress the evidence, he pleaded guilty to possession with
intent to distribute a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
841(b)(1)(A)(viii).
Calvert argues that the stop was unconstitutional. He claims he didn’t commit
a traffic violation, so the trooper lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop. But the
district court credited the trooper’s testimony that he believed Calvert illegally
changed lanes. That finding is not clearly erroneous, and a traffic violation justifies
a stop. See United States v. Bonilla, 86 F.4th 1196, 1198 (8th Cir. 2023) (reviewing
factual findings for clear error); United States v. Hanel, 993 F.3d 540, 543 (8th Cir.
2021) (“Any traffic violation, however minor, provides probable cause for a traffic
stop.” (citation omitted)); United States v. Herrera-Gonzalez, 474 F.3d 1105, 1109
(8th Cir. 2007) (even an officer’s mistaken belief that a violation occurred can justify
a stop as long as the belief was objectively reasonable).
Calvert also claims that the trooper unreasonably prolonged the stop. An
officer may detain a motorist while completing “certain routine tasks related to the
traffic violation,” including checking drivers’ licenses and criminal histories. United
States v. Cox, 992 F.3d 706, 710 (8th Cir. 2021). Here, twelve minutes into the stop
and before dispatch had returned the criminal history check, the passenger consented
to a search. The trooper could extend the stop while he conducted the search. United
States v. Rivera, 570 F.3d 1009, 1013 (8th Cir. 2009) (when motorist consents to
search, “he necessarily consents to an extension of the traffic stop while the search
is conducted”).
Affirmed.
______________________________
1 The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, then Chief Judge, United States District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

-- 2 of 2 --