S.D.Ala.: Asking def about his money unlawfully extended stop

After the traffic stop, defendant should have been released. As he tried to go, questions about his money unreasonably extended the stop. United States v. Snowden, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112966 (S.D.Ala. August 26, 2015):

Trooper Roe lawfully conducted a routine stop of Defendant’s vehicle for speeding. Defendant complied with the stop, provided all requested information, and joined Trooper Roe in his cruiser. Upon running Defendant’s information, Trooper Roe found that Defendant had no outstanding warrants or criminal history and that the car was registered to Defendant. Trooper Roe then issued Defendant a written warning for speeding and returned all documentation to Defendant. At this point the seizure’s mission was accomplished and further investigation should have ceased. Defendant attempted to terminate the encounter and exit the cruiser. Trooper Roe, however, began questioning Defendant as to the amount of money he possessed, which prolonged his detention. The court finds that Trooper Roe’s additional questions measurably extended the tolerable duration of the stop in such a way that violates the Fourth Amendment.

The government argues that Defendant’s prolonged detention is justified by the reasonable suspicion Trooper Roe formed before returning Defendant’s documentation. More specifically, the government contends that Defendant’s nervousness, the prescription pill bottle in Defendant’s glove box, the reasonably large sum of cash Defendant had on his person, and the discrepancy about the amount of money Defendant possessed provides a basis for reasonable suspicion. The Court disagrees.