{"id":4931,"date":"2011-01-26T01:19:42","date_gmt":"2010-11-26T07:20:33","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-11-26T07:20:33","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4931","title":{"rendered":"DE: Passengers are subject to some scrutiny during a traffic stop"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>During a traffic stop, passengers are subject to some scrutiny. Asking questions of the passenger here led to finding drugs on him and in the car. <a href=\"http:\/\/courts.delaware.gov\/opinions\/%281irv5o45bey1uzz5hlkcmvqo%29\/download.aspx?ID=146880\">Loper v. State<\/a>, 8 A.3d 1169 (Del. 2010):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Loper\u2019s first claim, that Officer Cancila exceeded the scope of the initial traffic stop by questioning Kennedy, runs as follows: Had Cancila not questioned Loper\u2019s passenger, the police would have never discovered the PCP on Loper\u2019s person or in his car. Because the police had no right to question Kennedy, the evidence ultimately seized as a result of searching Loper should have been suppressed. Loper\u2019s argument fails, because he cannot show that by questioning Kennedy, the police exceeded the scope of the traffic stop or acted unreasonably under the circumstances. The United States Supreme Court has observed that during a routine traffic stop, all passengers are subject to some scrutiny.10 This Court has also held that during a routine traffic stop, the police may question a passenger about his or her identity, and that those questions are not beyond the scope of a reasonable investigation.11 Accordingly, the trial judge properly held that Officer Cancila did not exceed the permissible scope of a routine traffic stop by asking Loper\u2019s passenger for identification and then running a background check.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>10 <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=8605561828750110049&amp;q=brendlin+v.+california&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=20002\">Brendlin v. California<\/a>, 551 U.S. 249, 257, 127 S. Ct. 2400, 168 L. Ed. 2d 132 (2007) (&#8220;[E]ven when the wrongdoing is only bad driving, [a] passenger will expect to be subject to some scrutiny. &#8230;&#8221;).<\/p>\n<p>11 Mills v. State, 900 A.2d 101 (Table), 2006 WL 1027202, at *2 (Del. 2006) (&#8220;[Q]uestions concerning a suspect\u2019s identity are a routine and accepted part [of an investigatory stop].&#8221;) (quoting <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=9995425018966578786&amp;q=Hiibel&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=20002\">Hiibel v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Nev., Humboldt Cty.<\/a>, 542 U.S. 177, 186, 124 S. Ct. 2451, 159 L. Ed. 2d 292 (2004)).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>CI was identified and made admissions against penal interest that she smoked marijuana with the defendant at his house. That was PC for the search warrant. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.state.in.us\/judiciary\/opinions\/pdf\/11191001lmb.pdf\">Lanham v. State<\/a>, 937 N.E.2d 419 (Ind. App. 2010)* [I suspect that the only reason why the police went after this defendant was selling the joint for $5 to his 14 year old CI in his house.].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4931\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4931","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4931","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4931"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4931\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4931"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4931"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4931"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}