Page 23 - May June 2020 TPA Journal
P. 23

On appeal, Smith makes three primary                 vehicle’s occupants to verify the information
        arguments.3 First, he argues that Officer Solomon    provided by the driver.” There is no hard-and-fast
        unreasonably extended the traffic stop by            time limit for “reasonable” traffic stops. Rather,
        continuing to question Smith and his passengers      the stop “must be temporary and last no longer
        beyond 6:04 p.m., the point at which Smith           than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the
        believes the stop reasonably should have been        stop.”   “[T]he tolerable duration of police
        completed. Second, Smith contends that, even if      inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined
        the stop could reasonably have been extended         by the seizure’s ‘mission’—to address the traffic
        beyond 6:04 p.m., by 6:12 p.m. it is clear that      violation that warranted the stop and attend to
        Solomon had no further reasonable suspicion that     related safety concerns.”   “Authority for the
        could support a further extension of the stop and    seizure . . . ends when tasks tied to the traffic
        the ensuing narcotics investigation. Finally, Smith  infraction are—or reasonably should have been—
        believes that Solomon unreasonably extended the      completed.” “If the officer develops reasonable
        stop by waiting approximately ten minutes to         suspicion of additional criminal activity during his
        deploy Krash after he began the narcotics            investigation of the circumstances that originally
        investigation. For the reasons we discuss below,     caused the stop, he may further detain its
        none of these arguments is persuasive.  We set       occupants for a reasonable time while
        forth the applicable Fourth Amendment principles     appropriately attempting to dispel this reasonable
        before addressing each of Smith’s arguments in       suspicion.” “[R]easonable suspicion exists when
        turn.                                                the officer can point to specific and articulable
                                                             facts which, taken together with rational
        A Fourth Amendment “seizure” occurs when an          inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant
        officer stops a vehicle and detains its occupants.   the search and seizure.” “Reasonable suspicion is
        “We analyze the legality of traffic stops for Fourth  a low threshold” and requires only “some minimal
        Amendment purposes under the standard                level of objective justification.”   Reasonable
        articulated by the Supreme Court in  Terry v.        suspicion demands something more than a “mere
        Ohio…”   This involves two steps. First, we          ‘hunch’” but “‘considerably less than proof of
        determine whether the stop was justified at its      wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence,’
        inception. “For a traffic stop to be justified at its  and ‘obviously less’ than is necessary for probable
        inception, an officer must have an objectively       cause.” Our inquiry views “the totality of the
        reasonable suspicion that some sort of illegal       circumstances and the collective knowledge and
        activity, such as a traffic violation, occurred, or is  experience of the officer.” We give due weight to
        about to occur, before stopping the vehicle.”        the officer’s factual inferences because officers
        Second, if the stop was justified, we ask whether    may “draw on their own experience and
        “the officer’s subsequent actions were reasonably    specialized training to make inferences from and
        related in scope to the circumstances that caused    deductions about the cumulative information
        him to stop the vehicle in the first place.” “A      available to them that ‘might well elude an
        seizure for a traffic violation justifies a police   untrained person.’”
        investigation of that violation.” As part of that
        investigation, “an officer may examine driver’s      Smith first argues that the stop should have ended
        licenses and vehicle registrations and run           at 6:04 p.m., because by that time Officer
        computer checks.” “He may also ask about the         Solomon had seen that the vehicle had a
        purpose and itinerary of the occupants’ trip . . . .”  temporary license plate and had confirmed that
        And he may ask “similar question[s] of the           Smith’s driver’s license was valid.  We are




        May/June 2020            www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140                         19
   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28