USA v. Waller et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 25-03165-03-CR-S-BP
)
KRISTY NAOMI JUEL NORTON, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
(2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
Defendant has been indicted on one count each of (1) conspiring to distribute 50 grams or
more of methamphetamine, (2) possessing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to
distribute, and (3) possessing fentanyl with intent to distribute. She filed a Motion to Suppress,
(Doc. 112), arguing that the search of her car (during which drugs were discovered) violated her
rights under the Fourth Amendment.1 On March 10, 2026, the Honorable David P. Rush, United
States Magistrate Judge for this District, issued a Report recommending that the undersigned deny
the Motion to Suppress. (Doc. 143.) A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendation to which objection is
made,” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), but neither party has objected to Judge Rush’s Report and
Recommendation and the time for doing so has passed. 	Accordingly, Judge Rush’s Report is
adopted as the Order of the Court, and the analysis need only be summarized here.
1 The Motion also sought to suppress Defendant’s statements, but at the suppression hearing Defendant withdrew this
aspect of her Motion because she made no incriminating statements so there were none to be suppressed. (Doc. 138,
pp. 2-3, 29-30.)
Case 6:25-cr-03165-BP Document 145 Filed 06/05/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Dakota Miller works for the Missouri Highway Patrol and is a Task Force Officer (“TFO”)
with the South Central Drug Task Force. Beginning in 2023, he developed information that led
him to believe that Defendant was transporting drugs from St. Louis, Missouri to Howell County,
Missouri, for resale. On November 6, 2024, he learned that Defendant was returning to Howell
County from St. Louis in a Nissan Rogue owned by Jeff Sanders, under circumstances suggesting
she was transporting drugs. 	TFO Miller asked Deputy Robert Malone of the Howell County
Sheriff’s Office to stop her vehicle once it reached Howell County. Deputy Malone followed the
Nissan; radar indicated Defendant was speeding, so Deputy Malone pulled her over. Defendant
provided a driver’s license but could not provide proof of insurance.
TFO Miller arrived and spoke to Defendant while Deputy Malone was in his car
conducting tasks associated with the traffic stop. When Deputy Malone exited his car, TFO Miller
told him there was reasonable suspicion to believe there were drugs in the Nissan and asked him
to perform a K-9 search. Deputy Malone was a K-9 officer, and his K-9 partner was in his car.
The dog alerted on the driver’s side door or window, and a search of the interior revealed a glass
pipe in a bag between the driver’s seat and the front console. Also discovered was a large black
lockbox partially sticking out of a backpack (because the lockbox was bigger than the backpack).
The lockbox was removed from the car, and the dog alerted on the lockbox. This information was
used to support a request for a warrant to open the lockbox; the warrant was issued and the lockbox
was found to contain, inter alia, methamphetamine and fentanyl.
In her Motion to Suppress, Defendant argued that (1) the traffic stop was “an orchestrated
pretext to investigate [her] for drug trafficking without proper Fourth Amendment justification”
and (2) even if the traffic stop was valid, it was impermissibly prolonged. (Doc. 112, p. 5.) The
Court agrees with the Report’s recommendation that both arguments should be rejected. First, the
Case 6:25-cr-03165-BP Document 145 Filed 06/05/26 Page 2 of 3

3
fact that Defendant was speeding justified the stop, regardless of any other motives Deputy Malone
or TFO Miller may have had. E.g., Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 812-13 (1996); United
States v. Rutledge, 61 F.4th 597, 600-01 (8th Cir. 2023); United States v. Frasher, 632 F.3d 450,
453 (8th Cir. 2011). Second, while (1) “an officer may not extend a stop beyond the time needed
to handle the matter for which the stop was made unless he develops a reasonable, articulable
suspicion of criminal activity,” United States v. Gastelum, 11 F.4th 898, 902 (8th Cir. 2021), and
(2) the stop was extended to allow for the dog sniff, by that time there was reasonable suspicion to
believe that Defendant was transporting drugs in the car. 	The facts supporting reasonable
suspicion were those developed during TFO Miller’s investigation; they are summarized in the
Report, (Doc. 143, pp. 8-9), and need not be repeated here because Defendant has not objected to
them, nor has she objected to the legal conclusion that they established reasonable suspicion
sufficient to prolong the traffic stop.
For these reasons, the Court adopts the Report as the Order of the Court and denies the
Motion to Suppress.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Beth Phillips
BETH PHILLIPS, JUDGE
DATE: June 5, 2026 	UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 6:25-cr-03165-BP Document 145 Filed 06/05/26 Page 3 of 3