CA9: Questions about supervised release status and request for consent during traffic stop are reasonable

This traffic stop was not unreasonably extended. “Officers were permitted to ask Contreras about his supervisory release status as an ordinary inquiry incident to a traffic stop. … Officers were also allowed to conduct a criminal records search. … Likewise, the interest in officer safety justified Officer Gonzalez’s decision to wait for his partner to complete the pat down of Contreras before proceeding to the patrol car to conduct the criminal records search. We reject Contreras’s argument that the mere request for consent to search the vehicle itself resulted in an unlawful prolongation of the traffic stop.” United States v. Contreras, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33877 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2023).

Defendant attempts a conditional plea after losing a search issue, and this state requires a certified question that is dispositive be stated. Here, the trial court’s order prepared by the parties doesn’t tell the court what evidence to be suppressed was to show it was dispositive. Therefore, appeal dismissed. State v. Hodges, 2023 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 510 (Dec. 21, 2023).*

The arrest here was in the driveway of another, and there undisputedly was probable cause that plaintiff was attempting to interfere with the arrest of another person. Foxhoven v. Stacy, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33866 (8th Cir. Dec. 21, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Burden of pleading, Probation / Parole search, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.