E.D.Wis.: 25 min. wait for tint meter was related to stop and didn’t unreasonably extend it

A 25 minute wait for a tint meter to arrive at the scene of the stop was directly related to the purpose of the traffic stop: overtinted windows. “Johnson acknowledges that the police officers lawfully stopped him. A person who operates a vehicle with illegally tinted windows might as well post an invitation on the car for the police to stop him whenever they want to.” United States v. Johnson, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56435 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 25, 2021):

This was not an instance where police improperly extended the traffic stop so an unrelated investigation could occur. Cf. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 408 (2005). Although the court has not been provided the complete body-camera footage, it appears the search began soon after Kranz finished testing the vehicle’s windows. That Johnson was not subsequently issued a citation for the tinted windows (the discovery of drugs rendering the ordinance violation for tinted windows inconsequential) does not change the fact that the stop and subsequent search were lawful.

Moreover, suppression of evidence is appropriate only when there is a causal relationship between the delay and the discovery of evidence-for example, where a police officer extends a traffic stop to allow a drug dog to be brought to the scene, which leads to the discovery of contraband. See, e.g., Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 357. There was no such relationship here. The additional fact that led to the search-that Johnson was on supervision-was obtained at the outset of the encounter. Suppression would not be appropriate simply because the officers delayed in acting on that information. But, in any event, the delay was attributable to the initial reason for the stop and, therefore, the fact that it was about 40 minutes between the start of the encounter and when an officer began the search is not a reason for suppression.