How Long is Too Long?
Stopping a vehicle for speeding, writing a ticket, and sending that person on their way is on the “simple” side of the spectrum. Complexity arises with continued questioning, K’9’s, or asking drivers to step out of their vehicles. These additional factors suddenly create a growing issue: how long is too long for a traffic stop?
Photo: Courtesy of Google
Traffic stops have the potential to be relatively simple, but they also have the potential to become very complex. Stopping a vehicle for speeding, writing a ticket, and sending that person on their way is on the “simple” side of the spectrum. Complexity arises with continued questioning, K’9’s, or asking drivers to step out of their vehicles. These additional factors suddenly create a growing issue: how long is too long for a traffic stop?
Before Rodriguez
The Fourth Amendment does not categorically prohibit searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment simply safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures. Therefore, by nature, the Fourth Amendment necessitates a balance between personal privacy and public safety. A traffic stop exists between this balance.
A traffic stop is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. It is, however, a seizure. When an officer activates their emergency lights and the vehicle yields to this authority, the vehicle has been “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. If an officer has reasonable suspicion that the vehicle committed a traffic violation or that some other type of criminal activity is afoot, then this seizure is considered “reasonable.” But an officer can do more than just stop and seize the vehicle. In some circumstances, an officer can use a K-9.
In these cases, a dog sniff is generally not considered a search. By nature, dogs have more sensitive noses than humans and can often smell things that humans would otherwise not be able to. Police K-9s go through special training to be able to detect and alert to various smells. In a public place, people generally do not have the same expectations of privacy that they would in their home or other private places. For example, people do not have an expectation of privacy in items that are in plain sight. Similarly, they do not have an expectation of privacy in odors that are in “plain smell.” Thus, a K-9 can lawfully be used to walk around the exterior of a vehicle without it being a search. In these scenarios, a K-9 is being used in a public place to smell an area that has no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Rodriguez
These concepts intertwined in 2015 in the landmark case of United States v. Rodriguez when, just after midnight, Officer Struble observed a Mercury Mountaineer veer onto the shoulder of the highway and then jerk back into the road a few seconds later. Relying on this traffic violation, Officer Struble (a K-9 officer) initiated a traffic stop of the car.
Officer Struble exited his patrol vehicle, leaving his K-9 inside. Upon approaching the stopped vehicle, he spoke with the driver and a passenger. Rodriguez introduced himself and explained that he had swerved to avoid hitting a pothole. Officer Struble gathered Rodriguez’s insurance, license, and registration and brought them to his patrol car to do a records check. He brought these documents back to Rodriguez and retrieved the passengers’ documents. Once again, Officer Struble went to his vehicle to run a records check of the passenger. While at his car, Officer Struble called for a second officer and then wrote Rodriguez a warning citation. He returned to Rodriguez’s car, gave the passenger his documents back, and explained the warning ticket to Rodriguez. This process was completed at approximately 12:27 AM.
This was not the end of the encounter, though it was the pivotal part of this case. At this point, after Rodriguez had all his documents back in his possession, Officer Struble testified that the traffic stop was now “out of the way,” but the passengers were not yet “free to leave.” Officer Struble instead requested permission to walk his K-9 around the vehicle. Rodriguez declined. The second officer arrived on the scene at 12:33 AM, at which time Officer Struble walked his K-9 around the vehicle. The dog alerted, resulting in the discovery of a large bag of methamphetamine. In total, less than ten minutes elapsed between the termination of the original mission of the traffic stop and the dog’s alert.
The Court ultimately held the dog sniff unreasonably extended this traffic stop in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that this seizure was unreasonable because the officer extended the traffic stop beyond the original mission of the stop (issuing a warning ticket for driving off the shoulder of the road) without specific, articulable facts to justify the extension. Once the warning ticket had been issued, the original mission of the stop had effectively been terminated, and anything beyond this point, without new reasonable suspicion, was impermissible.
What is an officer’s “mission” in a traffic stop?
In Rodriguez, the Court further explained there are several “ordinary inquires” that are within the “mission” of a traffic stop. This is inclusive of determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, checking driver’s licenses, looking for outstanding warrants, seeking proof of insurance, verifying registration, and actually issuing a ticket. These are routine safety concerns that apply to each traffic stop. A dog sniff, on the contrary, is not a routine inquiry to most traffic stops. Therefore, this goes beyond the original mission of a traffic stop. To support a sniff, an officer must form new reasonable suspicion before the original mission of the traffic stop is terminated.
In conclusion, Rodriguez was a landmark decision in which a permissible seizure (the traffic stop) turned into an unreasonable seizure. Unreasonable seizures are precisely what the Fourth Amendment safeguards against. Rodriguez is functionally a “check” on historically reasonable seizures and permissible dog sniffs.
Rodriguez in North Carolina
The decision in Rodriguez ignited litigation over how long a traffic stop could legally last in various states, including North Carolina. In State v. Bullock, the court found new reasonable suspicion, sufficient to extend a traffic stop, with the following facts: trembling hands while giving an officer his license, a rental car, two visible cell phones (one occupant), driving on a major drug trafficking thoroughfare, inconsistent stories, cash, and inconsistent eye contact. Based on all of these facts, the officer was permissibly able to extend the traffic stop beyond the initial traffic violation.
Yet, other North Carolina cases seem to suggest the opposite. In State v. Reed, a man was pulled over for a traffic violation. In this case, as in the previous one, the man was driving a rental car. There was also a female passenger and a Pitbull in the car. The car appeared to be lived in; there was dog food and air fresheners thrown about, and the defendant and passenger gave inconsistent stories. Nevertheless, the extension of the stop in this case was found to be impermissible. The majority decision found it compelling that the officer was inconsistent in his articulation of what his further reasonable suspicion was and when he developed it. Further, this was not a voluntary encounter because the individuals were not free to leave during further questioning.
What about K-9 searches in North Carolina after Rodriguez?
State v. France held that a K-9 search conducted simultaneously with the original mission of the stop was permissible. In that case, two officers pulled a defendant over for a broken taillight and began the “ordinary inquires” of requesting identification, running the license plate, and conducting warrant checks. While conducting these checks, one of the officers requested a K-9 unit. This unit responded while the officer was drafting the citation (before the mission of the stop had been completed). The K-9 alerted to the vehicle. The Court of Appeals ultimately held this did not unlawfully extend the traffic stop. This seems to make sense with the concerns expressed in Rodriguez – if both officers are working independently, the driver is not being held for any longer than he would have been if the K-9 and additional officer were not present.
The Impact of Rodriguez
When looking at these cases, it becomes clear that these cases turn on the details: on highly specific, fact-intensive, reasonable suspicion inquires. Reasonable suspicion to extend a traffic stop, by definition, requires specific, articulable facts. These can arise from behavior, maneuvers, geographic location, conversations, observations, time of day, officer experience, or any other number of factors. These facts build on each other and are considered in totality. But where do we get these details? Most frequently, we get details of an incident from officer reports and body camera footage.
On appeal, cases come down to the details; details that are different in each case, making it hard to create an exact guide. This makes it even more pressing for officers to be recording details that they think are important based on their training and experience. At least for the foreseeable future, it seems that these cases are going to rely heavily on officer testimony and reports.
