GA: Traffic stop detention should have ended when basis of stop was shown erroneous; consent invalid

Officers had a description of vehicle being involved with drugs but no detail. Defendant’s vehicle matched the description, so he was validly stopped because it was suspected that his license plate was expired. After the stop, it was determined that the vehicle was in fact properly licensed and the tag was on the wrong corner of the plate. The officer noticed defendant was nervous. He asked defendant for consent, and defendant refused. The officer had defendant get out and he frisked him. Asked for consent a second time, defendant consented, but this consent was the product of an illegal detention, even though it was only four minutes long. Heard v. State, 325 Ga. App. 135, 751 S.E.2d 918 (2013):

In this case, the basis of the officer’s suspicion was insufficient to justify the continued or second detention. The officer had no information about the reliability of the lookout information, such as who had provided the information to the captain or how recently it had been provided. And the officer was given only a general description of the vehicle, not information sufficiently detailed that it would have allowed him to verify that the information was inherently reliable.

Nervousness is not sufficient to justify an investigative detention. Even when we consider together the lookout information and Heard’s nervousness, we cannot conclude that the officer was aware of circumstances sufficient to create a reasonable suspicion that Heard was involved in criminal activity other than the suspected traffic violation.

The state asserts that “the stop was not unlawfully prolonged as … no more than four minutes” elapsed from the time Heard stopped his vehicle until he consented to the search.

However, in assessing the reasonableness of an investigative stop, “[n]o ‘bright-line’ or rigid time limitation is imposed.” In considering whether the length of a detention was reasonable, it is appropriate to examine whether, after the stop of the vehicle, “the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant.” “The officer’s purpose in an ordinary traffic stop is to enforce the laws of the roadway, and ordinarily to investigate the manner of driving with the intent to issue a citation or warning.

Here, the purpose of the traffic stop had been effectuated, and no developments occurred after the vehicle was validly stopped which provided the officer with a reasonable basis to suspect that there were illegal drugs in the vehicle. Yet, the officer continued to question Heard about his nervousness and whether he possessed drugs or weapons, and to seek consent to a search. The detention lasted longer than was necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop, and was not lawful. We hold that, in this case, the trial court erred in its application of the law to undisputed facts.