CA9: Asking whether occupant of car was armed took three seconds and didn’t unreasonably extend stop

“The district court correctly held that the officers did not violate Torres’s Fourth Amendment rights by asking him whether he was armed. The officer’s question to Torres, which took no more than three seconds to ask and answer, did not unconstitutionally prolong the stop. See Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354 (2015) (The ‘Fourth Amendment tolerate[s] certain unrelated investigations that [do] not lengthen the roadside detention.’). Indeed, the entire interaction unfolded in less than twenty seconds. We need not decide whether the officers had reasonable suspicion to frisk Torres, because Torres ran away from the officers immediately after he was asked whether he was armed, and Torres does not dispute that the officers were permitted to pursue and restrain him based on this conduct.” United States v. Torres, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 5118 (9th Cir. Feb. 20, 2026).

The officer was trained in the odor of burnt fentanyl [albeit nowhere near as much as burnt marijuana], and that was probable cause. State v. Grounds, 2026 Ida. App. LEXIS 9 (Feb. 20, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.