D.Utah: Questions about anything of “concern” or “illegal” inside vehicle were not about officer safety

The traffic stop was valid, but the extension of the stop was not, and defendant’s statements during the stop are suppressed. “Here, the officers extended the traffic stop to ask whether there was anything ‘of concern’ or ‘illegal’ inside of Anderson’s truck.” But, these were not about officer safety concerns because defendant was outside of the vehicle. United States v. Anderson, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216482 (D. Utah Dec. 5, 2023).

Defendant was stopped for speeding on I-80. She was in a rental car for which she was an authorized driver but didn’t rent. The officer asked about her travel plans, and it did not unreasonably extend the stop. The officer considered the answers odd. The drug dog showed within minutes and sniffed and alerted on the car, and the alert was probable cause. “Th[is] discussion leads the Court to conclude that Trooper Baltes asked permissible questions during the course of a stop. The brief extension of the stop, if any, was supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The drug sniff of the vehicle’s exterior did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. Any contact between the drug dog and the vehicle, if any, was instinctive and not a trespass infringing upon any Fourth Amendment rights.” (The stop was also based on prior information that the car may be carrying drugs when it arrived on I-80 and the officer was waiting six miles across the state line.) United States v. Chacon, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215766 (S.D. Iowa Nov. 9, 2023).*