D.Neb.: 24 minutes for a stop wasn’t unreasonable under Rodriguez where officer didn’t do anything other than wait for a response on his criminal history check request

Whether a stop was too long for Rodriguez can be fact-bound. Here, while it was all 24 minutes for the criminal history check with the delay in getting information back, the officer wasn’t talking to or questioning the defendant. “The Court concludes that Mayo was not ‘dilatory in [his] investigation,’ Sharpe, 470 U.S. at 687, and the wait for the results of the criminal background check was not a police tactic designed to obtain incriminating information.” United States v. Steele, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191126 (D. Neb. Nov. 20, 2017).

Surveillance at 4 am “form[ed] the requisite ‘particularized and objective basis’ for suspecting that Bradford was involved in a narcotics transaction, which, in turn, justified any delay associated with conducting the dog sniff.” United States v. Bradford, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190977 (D. Idaho Nov. 14, 2017).*

This entry was posted in Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.