D.Utah: Not having rental agreement in hand permits officer to inquire of rental car company during stop

Defendant’s inability to produce a rental agreement for his car was a factor in reasonable suspicion and permitted the officer to call the rental car company to check. He also determined that defendant drove to California with a short turnaround. United States v. Frazier, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104530 (D. Utah June 13, 2020):

Unusual behavior, coupled with other factors, supports reasonable suspicion. Based on his training and experience, Trooper Gibbs believed that some of Frazier’s conduct was unusual and suspicious. Among the many factors that contribute to reasonable suspicion, “the inability to offer proof of ownership or authorization to operate the vehicle has figured prominently in many [ ] cases upholding further questioning.” The “defining characteristic” of the 10th Circuit’s “traffic stop jurisprudence” is one’s lack of indicia of proof to lawfully operate or possess the vehicle, thus giving rise to reasonable suspicion that the vehicle may be stolen. note Frazier was unable to provide sufficient proof that he was authorized to operate the vehicle, which contributes to reasonable suspicion. That issue was not resolved until Trooper Gibbs called the rental company himself, as Frazier was never able to produce a rental agreement.

While there may be innocent explanations for each observation, the “existence of a plausible innocent explanation does not preclude a finding of reasonable suspicion. ‘Reasonable suspicion requires a dose of reasonableness and simply does not require an officer to rule out every possible lawful explanation for suspicious circumstances.'” Given the totality of the above-described factors, Trooper Gibbs had reasonable suspicion to prolong the detention of Frazier to the moment that Bolos alerted on the vehicle.

This entry was posted in Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.