CA3: Questions beyond travel plans may unreasonably extend a stop, but here not

Questions about travel plans aren’t unreasonable during a traffic stop. Followup questions, however, would have been unreasonable, but for there already being reasonable suspicion. United States v. Segovia, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 17479 (3d Cir. June 11, 2021):

As we have noted, “some questions relating to a driver’s travel plans ordinarily fall within the scope of the traffic stop” and thus do not extend it. Garner, 961 F.3d at 271. In this case, Stepanski’s initial questions about Gonzalez Segovia’s comings and goings are in that category. Stepanski began to measurably extend the stop beyond the time needed to complete its traffic-related mission after Gonzalez Segovia said he was going to Brooklyn, New Jersey. Many of the officer’s detailed follow up questions—e.g., “what’s going on in Brooklyn?” and “who are you visiting?—were not plausibly related to Gonzalez Segovia’s traffic violation or officer safety. But that extension of the stop is unavailing to Gonzalez Segovia because Trooper Stepanski had reasonable suspicion that justified continuing the questioning and ultimately asking to search the vehicle. See United States v. Bey, 911 F.3d 139, 147 & n.44 (3d Cir. 2018) (an officer may use an investigative seizure of limited scope and duration to test a reasonable suspicion).

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

Comments are closed.