D.Md.: Waiting for backup doesn’t unreasonably extend a stop under Rodriguez

Waiting for backup is for legitimate safety concerns and does not unreasonably extend a stop under Rodriguez. United States v. Bagayoko, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185066 (D. Md. Oct. 9, 2024):

As the Supreme Court held in United States v. Rodriguez, even a de minimis extension of a traffic stop to conduct a canine scan without reasonable suspicion or consent violates the Fourth Amendment. 575 U.S. 348, 357 (2015). In Rodriguez, the Supreme Court distinguished “‘legitimate and weighty'” officer safety concerns during a traffic stop from “safety precautions taken in order to facilitate … detours” from a stop’s original mission. Id. (quoting Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 110-11 (1977)). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has never addressed, however, whether waiting for backup officers during a traffic stop in a high crime area unconstitutionally prolongs a traffic stop. Other circuits have suggested that waiting for backup does not unconstitutionally prolong a stop because “attending to safety concerns” is part of effectuating the original purpose of a traffic stop. United States v. Burwell, 763 Fed. App’x 840, 844 (11th Cir. 2019). See also United States v. Stewart, 902 F.3d 664, 674-75 (7th Cir. 2018) (suggesting officer safety may permit officer to await backup without unconstitutionally prolonging traffic stop); United States v. Albriza, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 32231, 2022 WL 17101253, at *3 (11th Cir. Nov. 22, 2022) (holding traffic stop was not prolonged because officer waited for backup to avoid being outnumbered by vehicle’s occupants).

Here, Officer Nussle did not unconstitutionally prolong the stop when he waited less than five minutes for backup after he stopped a vehicle with two occupants in a high crime area. See United States v. Newland, 246 Fed. App’x 180, 188 (4th Cir. 2007) (collecting cases deeming I-95 a drug corridor). Officer Nussle was outnumbered by the occupants and stopped Defendant’s minivan in an area as to which he testified is known to the Elkton Police Department for prostitution and drug-related crimes. Moreover, Officer Nussle testified that he had been involved in hundreds of traffic stops in that area and vehicles with expired tags very frequently are involved in drug trafficking. While Defendant contends that Officer Nussle called for backup to enable him to conduct the canine scan, Officer Nussle was conducting a traffic stop—one of the most dangerous situations for a police officer—in a high crime area known for drug trafficking. Because Officer Nussle’s decision to wait for backup was related to his ability to safely effectuate the purpose of the stop, the stop was not unconstitutionally prolonged.