C.D.Ill.: Seemingly idle questions during a traffic stop didn’t unreasonably extend it in any “measurable way”

Seemingly idle questions during a traffic stop didn’t unreasonably extend it in any “measurable way.” United States v. Goodwill, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1831 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 3, 2020):

Defendant also argues that Detective Roseman’s actions while both men were in the police vehicle impermissibly prolonged the traffic stop. Defendant cites specifically to questions that Detective Roseman asked Defendant about the weather, the Ford Edge, Defendant’s travel plans, Defendant’s place of employment, Defendant’s child, the mother of Defendant’s child, and other topics unrelated to the reason for the traffic stop.

Detective Roseman did ask Defendant numerous questions during the traffic stop that were unrelated to Defendant’s traffic violations. But that fact does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the traffic stop became unlawful, as that conclusion follows only if the unrelated questions prolonged the traffic stop. See Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 333, 129 S. Ct. 781, 172 L. Ed. 2d 694 (2009) (“An officer’s inquiries into matters unrelated to the justification for the traffic stop … do not convert the encounter into something other than a lawful seizure, so long as those inquiries do not measurably extend the duration of the stop.”).

Defendant has not shown that Detective Roseman’s questions unrelated to the reasons for the traffic stop impermissibly extended the traffic stop. According to Detective Roseman’s evidentiary hearing testimony, Detective Roseman, while conversing with Defendant in the police vehicle, was also (1) writing Defendant’s written warning, (2) going through information sent to the police vehicle’s computer, or (3) entering information into the computer to request additional information. Defendant has not shown otherwise. And the video of Defendant’s traffic stop supports the Government’s position that Detective Roseman diligently worked to complete the written warning as he conversed with Defendant.

. . .

At the time Detective Roseman asked Defendant for consent to have Leeroy Jenkins conduct a sniff of the Ford Edge, Detective Roseman had not yet completed Defendant’s written warning or used the window tint meter on the Ford Edge. Defendant has not shown that Detective Roseman’s questions regarding topics unrelated to the reason for the traffic stop impermissibly prolonged Detective Roseman’s issuance of the written warning. Accordingly, Defendant has not shown that his traffic stop became an unlawful seizure, and the evidence obtained from the search of the Ford Edge on May 16, 2018, need not be suppressed. See Lewis, 920 F.3d at 492.