Defendant’s arrest after an NCIC check showed warrants for him was reasonable. State v. Widmer, 2020 N.M. App. LEXIS 41 (Sept. 15, 2020).
To the same effect is United States v. Bullock, 020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170229 (N.D. Iowa Aug. 10, 2020). Also, the officer saw defendant’s arrest for a felony but not the disposition, and continuing the stop a bit was reasonable:
Defendant also argues that Officer Ehlers should have “[dug] a little deeper at that point into that particular issue, [so] he would have seen that Mr. Bullock was actually acquitted of all  charges.” Defendant cannot have it both ways. It appears from Government’s Exhibit 3 and Officer Ehlers’s testimony that Officer Ehlers exhausted all his resources trying to “dig deeper” looking for the resolution of the 2017 charges. However, had Officer Ehlers waited for the results of the Triple I, or continued to attempt to load programs and databases that were freezing, the stop would have lasted longer, which is the gravamen of Defendant’s entire motion. Officer Ehlers finally gave up and told Defendant at the scene he could find no information about the outcome of the charges.
Finally, to the extent Defendant argues that merely asking for the Triple I unreasonably prolonged the traffic stop, I do not agree. It took Officer Ehlers 18 seconds to request the Triple I, which was a de minimus delay. (Gov. Ex. 3 at 5:12-5:30.) And, as discussed above, Officer Ehlers articulated good reasons for requesting the Triple I. Moreover, he did not waste time while waiting for the results. Rather, he did exactly what Defendant asserts he should have done: he dug into the 2017 charges to find out how they were resolved. Therefore, to the extent a separate finding is necessary, I recommend the District Court find that asking for the Triple I did not unnecessarily prolong the traffic stop.