{"id":14393,"date":"2014-11-26T01:54:04","date_gmt":"2014-11-26T06:54:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=14393"},"modified":"2014-11-25T17:56:48","modified_gmt":"2014-11-25T22:56:48","slug":"oh3-where-theres-cause-for-a-traffic-stop-the-ulterior-motive-to-question-the-passenger-about-drugs-really-doesnt-matter","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=14393","title":{"rendered":"OH3: Where there&#8217;s cause for a traffic stop, the ulterior motive to question the passenger about drugs really doesn\u2019t matter"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>If there is cause for a traffic stop, the ulterior motive to question the passenger about drugs really doesn\u2019t matter. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.ohio.gov\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/3\/2014\/2014-ohio-5203.pdf\">State v. Gartrell<\/a>, 2014-Ohio-5203, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 5044 (3d Dist. November 24, 2014):<br \/>\n<!--more--><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>[*P69]  We next address Gartrell&#8217;s argument that Isom exceeded the scope of the stop when he &#8220;immediately questioned&#8221; Gartrell after Utley stopped the cab. (Appellant&#8217;s Brief at 14). We concluded above that Utley&#8217;s stop of the cab was not unconstitutional. To the extent Gartrell argues that his constitutional rights were violated because he was detained in the cab during a traffic stop, we reject his argument because officers may detain passengers of a lawfully stopped vehicle for the duration of the lawful detention of the driver. Fry, 2007-Ohio-3240, at \u00b6 16. Utley was speaking with the cab driver concerning why she stopped him while, in Gartrell&#8217;s words, Isom began to &#8220;immediately question&#8221; him. Therefore, the officers&#8217; detention of Gartrell did not extend beyond the lawful detention of the driver.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>If there is cause for a traffic stop, the ulterior motive to question the passenger about drugs really doesn\u2019t matter. State v. Gartrell, 2014-Ohio-5203, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 5044 (3d Dist. November 24, 2014):<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[35],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14393","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-reasonable-suspicion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14393","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14393"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14393\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14394,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14393\/revisions\/14394"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14393"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14393"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14393"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}