CA3: Police created exigency during stop not justification to extend it

Police can detour from the mission of a traffic stop to investigate other crimes just because the stop is in a high crime area, but they can’t use that to create exigency that doesn’t exist as to this defendant. United States v. Hurtt, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 9916 (3d Cir. Apr. 13, 2022):

However, police may not vary from the original mission and thereby create an exigency to support the resulting delay and any subsequent arrest. This police-created exigency doctrine prevents the government from deliberately creating its own exigent circumstances to justify otherwise unconstitutional intrusions. Rodriguez reasoned that “‘safety precautions taken in order to facilitate’ investigation of other crimes are not justified as part of a routine traffic stop.” Therefore, an officer cannot create a safety concern while off-mission and then rely upon that concern to justify a detour from the basic mission of the traffic stop. The limitations of the Fourth Amendment simply do not tolerate intrusions stemming from a detour from a lawful inquiry that is justified only by an exigency which police themselves have created. Moreover, mere presence in a high-crime area obviously does not, without more, justify an otherwise unconstitutional intrusion. It therefore follows that presence in a high-crime area alone cannot justify a safety concern that would excuse deviating from the original purpose of the detention.

This entry was posted in Emergency / exigency, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.