N.D.Iowa: BIA officer conducted high volume traffic stops for drug interdiction

The officer here was a Bureau of Indian Affairs highway officer with four states in his purview. He admittedly stops a lot of motorists, and he also does drug interdiction. He stopped defendant for following too close, engaged in conversation, and called for a drug dog which arrived before the stop was over. The dog sniff was reasonable because the stop was not extended. United States v. Williams, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130902 (N.D. Iowa June 8, 2023),* adopted, Jul 26, 20232023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128955 (N.D. Iowa July 26, 2023)*:

Defendant’s argument that “[i]nstead of writing the warning … Officer Jackson interrogated the driver about his itinerary and questioned him about his purpose for traveling to Iowa” wholly lacks merit. (Doc. 128-1 at 6.) First, Officer Jackson’s dash camera video (Gov. Exhibit 4) does not support Defendant’s contention that Officer Jackson prolonged the search by asking Mercadel about his travels. Government Exhibit 4 shows that Officer Jackson was simply being conversational while running the records checks and writing the citation. In his testimony, Officer Jackson stated that he always conducts his “traffic stops systematically, and I always conduct a record check on the individual [and] make sure that they have no warrants, valid license, I check the vehicle registration, and confirm the insurance before I begin my enforcement action as far as a warning or citation[.]” (Jackson Hr’g Test. at 27.) Officer Jackson also acknowledged that he had a general conversation with Mercadel regarding his travels. Officer Jackson stated “I ask everyone about their travels, if they’re willing to communicate with me. It’s not mandatory, that they talk to me, but if they do decide to talk to me, I engage.” (Id. at 28.) “[T]ravel-related questions do not impermissibly prolong a traffic stop when the officer is still completing the matter for which the stop was made.” United States v. Rutledge, 61 F.4th 597, 603 (8th Cir. 2023) (citing United States v. Callison, 2 F.4th 1128, 1131 (8th Cir. 2021)).

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

Comments are closed.