CA7: No “rule of thumb” for the Rodriguez moment

There’s no specific amount of time to elapse for a stop to be unreasonable under Rodriguez. All things considered, this was reasonable for six minutes. Other cases in this circuit have upheld them at 14 minutes. United States v. Devalois, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 3556 (7th Cir. Feb. 14, 2025):

… While “we repeatedly have declined to adopt even a rule of thumb” as to how long a reasonable stop may last, Gholston, 1 F.4th at 496, we note that about six minutes passed between Samuelson’s first contact with the driver and Bosco’s alert. See id. at 494-95 (concluding police did not unreasonably prolong a stop when a dog sniff occurred more than fourteen minutes after initial contact).

During that time, Samuelson diligently pursued tasks that fell within the stop’s mission. Indeed, many of his activities were directly related to the objective of the stop: issuing a warning for following too closely behind a semi-truck. See Yang, 39 F.4th at 902-03. At the outset, Samuelson sought the driver’s license. He then began a license status check and ran a search for the vehicle in the Illinois fleet system. When the driver could not produce the vehicle’s rental agreement, Samuelson sought the registration card. Once he had the information he needed to write a warning, he began drawing one up. And although Devalois seems to suggest Samuelson’s authority to continue the seizure ended then, he cannot be correct, as the officer still needed time to write the warning. Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 354-55 (describing the mission of a traffic stop as embracing the time needed to “issu[e] a warning ticket”) (emphasis added). All these tasks related to the stop’s mission. Cole, 21 F.4th at 428-29.

This entry was posted in Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.