SD: Questions about carrying drugs without RS extended the stop in violation of Rodriquez

Questions about drugs during a traffic stop asked without reasonable suspicion extended the stop and made it unreasonable. State v. Holy, 2025 S.D. 19 (Mar. 26, 2025):

[*P20] Here, the interdiction questions were not directly related to the mission or purpose of the stop, and they were not “ordinary inquiries incident to the traffic stop.” Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 355, 135 S. Ct. at 1615 (cleaned up). Nor were the unrelated interdiction questions supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Officer Stevens confirmed at the suppression hearing that he did not develop “reasonable suspicion” of additional criminal conduct until after he asked Holy if he “had anything dangerous or illegal[,]” and Holy admitted to having marijuana in the vehicle. But developing suspicion as a result of the unrelated interdiction questions cannot, of course, be used as a basis to ask them. Indeed, Officer Stevens’ testimony makes clear that his interdiction questions were not prompted by reasonable suspicion in the first place; they were simply an unsupported diversion from the purpose of the stop.

This entry was posted in Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.