OH4: Asking motorist about destination doesn’t measurably extend stop under Rodriguez

Asking a motorist about his or her destination during a traffic stop does not measurably extend the stop under Rodriguez. State v. Woods, 2024-Ohio-5301, 2024 Ohio App. LEXIS 3997 (4th Dist. Oct. 29, 2024).

Similar: “Officers may question the driver about subjects unrelated to the traffic stop so long as those questions do not extend the stop’s duration.” United States v. Baniel, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 28203 (5th Cir. Nov. 6, 2024).*

“Moreover, the appellate court’s discussion of probable cause and the scope of the warrant demonstrates that there are multiple grounds on which a motion to suppress could have been denied in the trial court. It is therefore clear that petitioner cannot establish the reasonable probability of a different result had counsel brought a motion. Indeed, even if the cellphone evidence had been excluded, what is needed to establish prejudice on a Strickland claim is reasonable probability of a different verdict. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693 (describing prejudice standard as a probability sufficient to undermine the court’s confidence in the verdict). This is not a case in which the granting of a motion to suppress dooms the government’s ability to prove its case in chief.” Stone v. Warden, Mule Creek State Prison, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202315 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.