{"id":6453,"date":"2011-12-28T07:17:31","date_gmt":"2011-12-25T00:12:14","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-12-23T13:07:37","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6453","title":{"rendered":"W.D.Va.: Officer’s hearing of order of protection on motorist justified more caution"},"content":{"rendered":"

When the computer check revealed an order of protection on the motorist being detained, the officer was justified in being more concerned for his own safety. Thus, it was not im<\/strong>proper for the officer to inquire into that, and it didn\u2019t extend the stop any. United States v. Green, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146916 (W.D. Va. December 21, 2011).*<\/p>\n

While Trooper Johnson also inquired about topics other than the traffic infractions, such as Green\u2019s travel plans and Green\u2019s reference to his lawyer, these brief questions did not run afoul of the scope or duration component of Terry\u2019s second prong. See Johnson, 555 U.S. at 333 (holding that a law enforcement officer\u2019s \u201cinquiries into matters unrelated to the justification for the traffic stop … do not convert the encounter into something other than a lawful seizure,\u201d provided the questions \u201cdo not measurably extend the duration of the stop\u201d).<\/p>\n

At approximately 10:14 a.m., dispatch advised Trooper Johnson that Green had a protective order against him, which Green confirmed. Upon receiving this report, Trooper Johnson requested additional information regarding the protective order. As Trooper Johnson noted during the suppression hearing, the existence of a protective order raises officer safety concerns, since the order can be indicative of assaultive or threatening behavior. Because there is no indication that Trooper Johnson\u2019s inquiry regarding the protective order measurably prolonged the stop, the court is persuaded that it did not alter the stop\u2019s lawful character. See Soriano-Jarquin, 492 F.3d at 500 (emphasizing that \u201c[i]t is well established that officers performing a lawful stop are \u2018authorized to take such steps as [are] reasonably necessary to protect their personal safety\u2019\u201d) (quoting United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 235 (1985)).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/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-6453","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6453","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=6453"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6453\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6453"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6453"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6453"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}