{"id":1828,"date":"2008-07-21T19:56:34","date_gmt":"2008-02-27T07:12:02","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-02-27T07:12:02","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1828","title":{"rendered":"Asking questions during writing of a ticket does not unreasonably extend the stop"},"content":{"rendered":"

Officer’s pause during ticket writing to ask some questions did not unreasonably extend the stop. United States v. Turvin<\/a>, 517 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2008) (2-1):<\/p>\n

Christensen’s brief pause in the ticket-writing process was reasonable, as was the duration of the detention until consent was given. We will not accept a bright-line rule that questions are unreasonable if the officer pauses in the ticket-writing process in order to ask them. The Supreme Court has “consistently eschewed bright-line rules [in the Fourth Amendment context], instead emphasizing the fact-specific nature of the reasonableness inquiry.” Robinette<\/em><\/a>, 519 U.S. at 39. It is true that in Mendez<\/em>, the officers managed to ticket and question detained drivers simultaneously. See Mendez<\/em>, 476 F.3d at 1078-79. That has been true in situations considered by other circuits as well. See, e.g., United States v. Soriano-Jarquin<\/em>, 492 F.3d 495, 501 (4th Cir. 2007) (“In this case, [the Trooper’s] request for identification did not prolong the stop, as it occurred while the police trainee checked the driver’s license and registration and prepared his citations”). It does not follow, however, that those are the only circumstances in which it is reasonable to ask unrelated questions. The Supreme Court does not set such a narrow rule, and neither do we. An officer who asks questions while physically writing a ticket will likely be slowed down just as an officer who briefly pauses to do so. There is no principled reason why the second situation is unconstitutional but not the first.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A registered guest of the renter of a motel room (guest of a guest) has common authority to consent. United States v. Caldwell<\/a>, 518 F.3d 426, 2008 FED App. 0092P (6th Cir. 2008):<\/p>\n

Caldwell’s primary response is that the record is silent as to whether Meyer had a room key at the time she consented to the search, precluding the conclusion she had actual authority over the room. But the presence or absence of a room key is not the be-all of actual authority, as anyone who has ever misplaced a room key knows. The issue is not whether she had a room key at the time of the search; the issue is whether she had authority to get one. Because she was registered as “Guest 2,” because her possessions were there and because she was staying there for the night, she assuredly had authority to enter the room–even if it meant asking the hotel clerk to let her in or to make a new key. Just as a tenant assumes the risk that a co-tenant might get a spare key from the landlord and admit an unwanted person, a hotel guest assumes the risk that his roommate might obtain a key from the hotel manager and do the same. See Matlock, 415 U.S. at 171 n.7 (noting that, when individuals enter a co-occupant relationship, they “assume the risk that one of their number might permit [a] common area to be searched”).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Warrantless search of plaintiff’s vehicle was with probable cause, so it was valid. Crull v. City of New Braunfels<\/a>, 267 Fed. Appx. 338 (5th Cir. 2008) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1828","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1828","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1828"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1828\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1828"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1828"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1828"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}