United States v. Clark: The Third Circuit’s Recognition of “Odor-Masking Conduct” as a Stand-Alone Factor Creating Reasonable Suspicion

Introduction

In United States v. Loren Clark, Jr., No. 24-1892 (3d Cir. July 18, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit confronted yet another challenge under Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015). The case arose out of an eight-minute traffic stop in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area during which park rangers discovered marijuana and approximately 15 grams of crack cocaine. The appellant, Loren B. Clark, Jr., asserted that Rangers Papai and Maloney impermissibly prolonged the stop absent the reasonable suspicion required to expand the investigation beyond the initial lane-violation.

Although Rodriguez jurisprudence is well-developed, the opinion breaks new doctrinal ground for the Third Circuit by expressly elevating “odor-masking conduct”—in this case, the lighting of a cigarillo immediately after the officer interaction—to an independent, weighty factor that may supply reasonable suspicion to extend a stop. Coupled with Clark’s premature exit from his still-moving van and other nervous behaviors, the Court concluded reasonable suspicion existed at every stage, thereby upholding the search and conviction.

Summary of the Judgment

Writing for a unanimous panel (Judges Phipps, Roth, and opinion author Judge Chung), the Court:

Affirmed the district court’s denial of Clark’s motion to suppress the marijuana and cocaine seized from his van.
Held that, even assuming there was a “Rodriguez moment” when the mission of the stop ended, the rangers possessed ongoing reasonable suspicion of contraband.
Identified specific behaviors—premature vehicle exit, frenetic movements, and lighting a cigarillo—as collectively providing a “particularized and objective basis” to suspect criminal activity.
Emphasized deference to officers’ experience in interpreting otherwise innocuous acts, thereby validating the expansion of traffic stops under the reasonable-suspicion standard.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The panel placed its decision within a carefully curated line of Supreme Court and Third Circuit authority.

Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) – the foundational rule that a seizure becomes unlawful when prolonged beyond the time needed to handle the traffic matter unless supported by reasonable suspicion of other wrongdoing.
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) – first articulated the “mission” concept for traffic stops.
United States v. Green, 897 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2018) – coined the term “Rodriguez moment” for the instant at which the traffic mission ends.
United States v. Hurtt, 31 F.4th 152 (3d Cir. 2022) – reiterated that an officer may ask unrelated questions if doing so does not measurably extend the stop or is backed by reasonable suspicion.
United States v. Stewart, 92 F.4th 461 (3d Cir. 2024) – recognized that evasive answers and nervous conduct heighten suspicion.
United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) & United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) – supplied the “totality of the circumstances” and “minimal level of objective justification” formulations.
Out-of-circuit odor-masking cases – United States v. Christian, 43 F.3d 527 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Neumann, 183 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1999) – relied upon by the Court to analogize that lighting a cigarette or cigar may reasonably suggest an attempt to hide drug odor.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in two analytical stages:

Identification (but not resolution) of the “Rodriguez moment.”
The Court sidestepped pinpointing the precise split-second when the traffic mission ended. Instead, it asked whether, at any possibly relevant moment, reasonable suspicion already existed. This approach effectively collapses the two-step inquiry when the government’s evidence of suspicion is strong from the outset.
Assessment of Reasonable Suspicion.
The Court catalogued five behavioral cues:
- Premature door opening while vehicle still moving.
- Exiting the vehicle unprompted and advancing toward officers.
- Quick “pocket reach”—interpreted as furtive gesture.
- Frenetic movements inside the van after being ordered back in.
- Lighting a freshly-rolled cigarillo moments later.
While each behavior might be innocent in isolation, their cumulative weight, viewed through the rangers’ experience, created “a particularized and objective basis” to believe Clark possessed contraband.

Impact of the Decision

Recognized Precedent in the Third Circuit. This is the first published* opinion in the Circuit expressly acknowledging “odor-masking conduct” (e.g., lighting a cigarette) as a salient, independent factor in the reasonable suspicion calculus.
Lower Bar for Officers. By granting “significant deference” to trained inferences about nervous or odor-masking behavior, the Court arguably lowers the evidentiary threshold needed to justify prolonging stops in the Circuit.
Suppression Litigation. Defense counsel will now confront a precedent that makes it more difficult to challenge stop extensions where any odor-masking behavior occurs, especially in jurisdictions with legalized or decriminalized marijuana.
Cross-Circuit Uniformity. The ruling harmonizes Third Circuit doctrine with Tenth, Eighth, and other circuits that have long considered smoke or fragrance deployment as suspicious.
Practical Policing. Officers may feel emboldened to interpret the natural act of lighting a cigarette as one marker of criminal activity. Training programs may begin to catalog such behavior as a standard observation point.
Potential Supreme Court Attention. Should a circuit split emerge on the relative weight of odor-masking cues, Clark could be cited in future cert petitions exploring the boundaries of reasonable suspicion post-Rodriguez.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Rodriguez Moment” – The point at which a traffic stop’s original purpose (e.g., writing a ticket) has been completed. Any continued detention beyond that instant must be justified by reasonable suspicion of additional wrongdoing.
Reasonable Suspicion – A commonsense, factual basis—considerably less than probable cause—requiring only “specific and articulable facts” that criminal activity may be afoot.
Totality of the Circumstances – Courts look at the collective mosaic of facts rather than isolating each piece. Innocent factors can combine to create suspicion.
Odor-Masking Conduct – Any behavior (smoking, spraying air freshener, chewing gum) that may conceal the smell of drugs or alcohol, thereby suggesting contraband to knowledgeable officers.
Deference to Officer Experience – Courts acknowledge that trained officers can draw inferences from behavior that might “elude an untrained person.” This grants their professional judgment appreciable weight.

Conclusion

United States v. Clark solidifies the Third Circuit’s post-Rodriguez jurisprudence by:

Confirming that a traffic stop may be extended when odor-masking conduct, combined with other nervous behaviors, supplies reasonable suspicion.
Embracing a pragmatic, officer-deferential totality-of-the-circumstances test that does not demand pinpointing a precise “Rodriguez moment” when suspicion is otherwise ample.
Providing explicit doctrinal recognition that lighting a cigarette—or comparable actions—can be probative of contraband concealment.

The opinion’s broader significance lies in its potential to shape roadside policing throughout the Circuit, influence suppression-motion strategy, and contribute to a growing national consensus that odor-masking behavior is a valid factor in the reasonable-suspicion matrix. Whether this trend will withstand future scrutiny in an era of expanding marijuana legalization remains an open—and fascinating—question for courts and legislatures alike.