CA8: Dist.Ct. erred in finding no RS for extending stop; there was, and it ripened to PC

The district court erred in finding there was no reasonable suspicion for extending the stop. “We have found a combination of nervous behavior and suspicious travel plans creates a reasonable suspicion justifying a traffic stop’s extension. … In the protective vehicle search context, we have also found an occupant’s furtive movement creates reasonable suspicion. … We have further found a third-party vehicle owner’s absence contributes to a finding of reasonable suspicion. … Like in those cases, Pope’s nervousness, his apparent attempt to conceal a baggie, and the renter’s absence were likely sufficient to justify extending the stop. [¶] Within ten minutes of encountering Pope and Davis, Sgt. Kober observed behavior justifying suspicion. Pope had several small baggies in his backpack, one of which he appeared to try hiding from Sgt. Kober. Pope was extremely nervous. Neither Pope nor Davis was listed on the SUV’s rental agreement, and the renter was not present. On those factors alone Sgt. Kober likely had more than a hunch Davis was involved in drug trafficking, but the presence of the loaded pistol [unlawful in a car in Iowa] convinces us that Sgt. Kober’s suspicion was reasonable and the stop was not unlawfully extended.” In fact, there was probable cause by the time of the extension of the stop. United States v. Davis, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 35600 (8th Cir. Nov. 27, 2019).*