Narcotics agents were surveilling a house based on unidentified "concerned citizen" calls of a high volume of short-stay traffic. Without corroborating the anonymous tips, agents followed the first vehicle they witnessed leaving the house, and an officer ultimately stopped the vehicle for a traffic violation. Upon completion of the reason for the stop, the officers delayed the detention to wait for a drug dog. The question presented is whether the Fifth Circuit erred by holding reasonable suspicion existed for the continued detention based on the narcotics agents' initial surveillance and on evidence that the driver was nervous, corrected himself when stating his previous location, did not reveal that he had stopped at the surveilled house, and had a prior license suspension for failure to complete a drug-education program.

The canine sniff went beyond an open-air sniff when the dog put its nose in the interior of the vehicle upon the canine handler's prompting. At the suppression hearing, the canine handler testified that the dog first alerted under the front of the car before intruding into the vehicle. The question presented is whether the Fifth Circuit erred by viewing the one-minute sniff/search in piecemeal to uphold the intrusion and by deferring to the handler's testimony when his own testimony, the videotape, and other evidence cast grave doubts on its reliability.

The defendant stipulated to the facts to support his conviction, accepting responsibility for the offense, and the Government and the probation department agreed he was entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The question presented is whether the district court erred by denying appellant's request for a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility because he, at one point and for ten days, changed his mind and requested a jury trial.

Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in its rulings on the continued detention and canine search