E.D.Cal.: Def’s complete lack of knowledge of anything of vehicle was RS of drug trafficking

“Here, Officer Pratt had independent reasonable suspicion for prolonging the traffic stop. He noted that the fact that the car was registered to one person and insured to another, neither of whom were the defendant, was a prominent indicator of narcotics trafficking. … Further, the defendant did not know who owned the vehicle, which the officer found to be “very significant.” … Also significant to the officer was the fact that only a single key was in the ignition. … Officer Pratt testified that these observations, combined with his extensive training and experience in narcotics interdiction, led him to believe the defendant “may be transporting narcotics.” … Officer Pratt’s identification of these indicia of narcotics trafficking occurred “within 20, 30 seconds” of his initiating contact with the defendant, at which time the officer’s focus shifted to “a narcotics stop.” … After he removed the defendant Alvarez from the car and continued talking with him, defendant Alvarez stated that he also did not know who had brought the vehicle to him. … Though he advised Officer Pratt that the vehicle had been dropped off to him at his uncle’s request, defendant Alvarez was unsure of his uncle’s name. … These facts were sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion of narcotics trafficking, which justified prolonging the stop for further investigation.” United States v. Alvarez, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177755 (E.D.Cal. Dec. 22, 2016).