 her
experience” that the tag could have been forged. There is no clear error on this point.

       Finally, Tovar argues that Swartz’s testimony that she did not look at the tag
while approaching the vehicle is “so implausible on its face” that the district court
clearly erred in crediting any of Swartz’s testimony. Swartz explained that she did
not look at the tag because her “attention [was] on the driver and any other occupants

                                          -5-
of the vehicle for safety reasons.” She elaborated that she was “[t]rying to make sure
that nobody has a weapon, nobody is fleeing the vehicle, nobody is making any
furtive movements in the front seat or the back seat, ascertain how many passengers
there are, et cetera.” Especially in view of the fact that Swartz knew the occupants
were under investigation by the Drug Enforcement Administration, this testimony is
not inherently implausible.

                                           B.

       The district court determined that this case is controlled by our decision in
Sanchez. In that case, a Nebraska state trooper observed a minivan without a front
or rear license plate, but with a piece of paper affixed where a rear license plate would
have been displayed. Sanchez, 572 F.3d at 476. As the trooper pursued the minivan
and approached it from the rear, he could read three lines of text on the paper. Id. at
476-77. At the bottom of the paper, in much smaller type, were the words “Arizona
Temporary Registration Plate.” Id. The law enforcement officer, however, could not
read these words from his vantage point, and he could not discern the name of any
issuing State. Id. at 477. “Suspecting that the paper was not an official document,
he decided to stop the minivan to investigate.” Id. The trooper eventually obtained
consent to search the minivan and found controlled substances. Id. The defendants
moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search. Id. They argued that the
piece of paper was a valid Arizona te