CA9: Questioning motorist about probation status for 10 seconds and safety reasons was reasonable

Questioning defendant about his probation or parole status, albeit for about 10 seconds and clearly for safety reasons, did not unreasonably extend the stop. United States v. Beltran, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 2003 (9th Cir. Jan. 30, 2024).

There was reasonable suspicion to extend this stop: “In this case, the cumulative weight of six factors leads us to conclude that Tessitore had reasonable suspicion before our assumed Rodriguez moment at the 15-minute-30-second mark of the traffic stop video. First, Stewart provided evasive, inconsistent, and downright puzzling answers to Tessitore’s questions about his travel. Second, the windows of Stewart’s vehicle had a dark tint. Third, Stewart was driving someone else’s car. Fourth, Stewart had a history of run-ins with the law, including a money laundering arrest made by the Drug Enforcement Agency. Fifth, Stewart was traveling along a well-known drug smuggling corridor. And finally, Stewart’s vehicle had an air freshener.” United States v. Stewart, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 2365 (3d Cir. Feb. 2, 2024).*

2255 petitioner gets a certificate of appealability for his Fourth Amendment claim. The parties are directed to brief Stone v. Powell and law of the case. United States v. Gartenlaub, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 2352 (9th Cir. Feb. 1, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Issue preclusion, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.