CA7 (en banc): Questions about travel plans during traffic stop not unreasonable

Resolving an apparent conflict between Rodriguez and pre-Rodriguez case law, the officer’s normal inquiries here about defendant’s travel plans were legitimate and produced answers that he could legitimately doubt. Defendant volunteered seven states other than where the stop occurred, and he got more and more nervous in the minutes that followed. That led to reasonable suspicion for a dog sniff. United States v. Cole, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 37398 (7th Cir. Dec. 17, 2021) (en banc (7-3), dissent here).

Ordering occupants out of the car during a simple traffic stop requires some level of reasonable suspicion or need for officer safety in Pennsylvania. Here, nothing had been established by the time the occupants were out of the car and the stop escalated as more was learned. As to the passenger, the pill bottle ultimately in the driver’s lap couldn’t be connected to him. Commonwealth v. Singletary, 2021 PA Super 251, 2021 Pa. Super. LEXIS 730 (Dec. 17, 2021).

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

Comments are closed.