CA3: Incidental conversation during a traffic stop about def’s watch and job didn’t unreasonably extend the stop

Incidental conversation during a traffic stop about defendant’s watch and job didn’t unreasonably extend the stop. United States v. Ross, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 21097 (3d Cir. Aug. 19, 2025):

Traffic stops, by their very nature, are tense and often awkward affairs. The officer walks up to the car knowing little about the driver behind the wheel. The driver, meanwhile, knows he is not free to leave. So some conversation is inevitable. But under Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015), not all conversation is constitutionally equal. The Fourth Amendment permits conversation that furthers the stop’s mission, including questions related to processing the infraction and officer safety, but it shuns inquiries that turn the stop into a roving criminal investigation–unless independently supported by reasonable suspicion.

Here, Appellant Raphael Ross argues that the guns and drugs found in his vehicle during a routine traffic stop should have been suppressed because the officer’s conversation–complimenting Ross’s watch and asking him where he worked–exceeded Fourth Amendment bounds. He is mistaken. Because the watch-and-job exchange, which lasted mere seconds, furthered the stop’s mission of ensuring officer safety, we will affirm the denial of Ross’s suppression motion and his subsequent conviction.

This entry was posted in Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.