N.D.Ohio: Passenger’s false info justified extending stop

“Based upon all of the above, the roughly 2 minutes and 23 seconds that Sergeant Perrin spent trying to determine why the passenger had given his false information was not an unreasonable extension of the duration of stop.” United States v. Hoover, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145887 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 21, 2023).*

“The officer who conducted the traffic stop, Nebraska State Patrol Trooper Austin Donner, worked diligently throughout the traffic stop, completing all the tasks associated with the traffic stop and issuing warning ticket within 12 minutes. (Ex. 2). Thereafter, Defendant agreed to remain in the patrol vehicle and answer additional questions posed by the officer. (Ex. 2, 13:30-13:37). Defendant was not unreasonably detained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” Then he consented. United States v. Rodriguez-Rios, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145951 (D. Neb. Aug. 18, 2023).*

“The court concludes that Rugg’s inquiries about the BMW and Defendants’ travel plans, and his subsequent detention of Defendants until completion of the dog sniff, were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Otero was unable to produce a driver’s license (and admitted he did not have one) or proof that the car was insured. It was reasonable under the circumstances for Rugg to conduct inquiries and run checks relating to the vehicle and to Otero’s status until he could confirm whether Otero was in lawful possession of the vehicle and whether anyone present could lawfully operate it. Rugg’s initial questions to Otero were either related to the mission of the stop or did not measurably extend the duration of the stop.” United States v. Otero, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145751 (D. Kan. Aug. 18, 2023).*