An interdiction agent testified at a suppression hearing about an interstate traffic stop that led to the seizure of approximately two pounds of methamphetamine, a firearm and other items.

Kevin Salewsky, an agent with the 20th Judicial District Drug Task Force, said he stopped the vehicle on I‑40 after repeatedly observing the car travel near or across lane lines and because the vehicle’s window tint appeared extremely dark. Salewsky told the court that when he approached the vehicle he immediately smelled marijuana and observed the passenger behave with “abnormal” nervousness. He directed the driver, later identified as Jeffrey "Ty" Hicks, to sit in his patrol vehicle while he continued the stop.

Salewsky said his in‑car video did not capture the 20–30 seconds before he activated the recorder; he testified the unit went straight to audio when he hit the button. The agent also said his external microphone malfunctioned and therefore there was no recorded audio of his outside conversation. Portions of the in‑car video were played in court.

During the stop the driver admitted there was a “blunt” in the ashtray; Salewsky said he smelled marijuana and that the passenger’s behavior increased his concern for officer safety. Salewsky testified that, while speaking with another agent at the scene, he opened the glove compartment and found a large bag of methamphetamine; he described the recovered meth as “close to two pounds,” a firearm hidden under the center console and Xanax bars.

Defense counsel argued the stop was prolonged and that the in‑car camera failed to capture key pre‑stop footage. The defense sought suppression of evidence on the grounds that the prolonged encounter exceeded the scope of a lawful traffic stop and that parts of the video were missing or defective. The defense also argued the odor of marijuana alone is not an automatic basis for probable cause in every jurisdiction; the agent relied on his training to justify the search.

The state responded that the odor, admissions and passenger behavior provided probable cause to search. The court allowed testimony about the stop and admitted photographs of the vehicle and the tint meter reading (the agent testified the meter showed 3% tint). The agent also identified a Miranda‑waiver form signed after the suspects were taken into custody.

The hearing record contains testimony about the arrest process, the dash camera recording limitations and the contents seized from the vehicle. The court heard argument and reviewed the video portions admitted into evidence. The judge took the matter under advisement; no suppression ruling was announced at the close of the state’s proof.

The hearing included cross‑examination and objections concerning the foundation for some testimony and the admissibility of missing portions of recorded footage. Both sides previewed legal arguments that would inform the court’s eventual ruling on whether the seized evidence was lawfully obtained.