Page 24 - May June 2020 TPA Journal

unpersuaded. Smith concedes that Solomon had pick up was not a large machine. But he had no
reasonable suspicion to pull him over. So, the explanation for why he needed three adult men to
initial traffic stop was legal and the first prong of pick up a machine of that size. Nor could he
the Terry inquiry is satisfied. As part of the traffic explain why it made sense to drive all the way
stop, Solomon could examine the driver’s licenses from Fort Worth, Texas to Indiana rather than just
of the vehicle’s occupants and check for any having the machine shipped.
outstanding warrants, ask Smith about the purpose
and destination of their journey, and ask similar Second, Smith, Carter, and Carroll gave
questions to Carroll and Carter to verify Smith’s contradictory stories about their destination, the
statements. Thus, to the extent that Smith argues purpose of their trip, and their relationships to
that any of those actions unreasonably prolonged each other. Smith claimed the men were headed to
the traffic stop beyond 6:04 p.m., his arguments Indiana to pick up restaurant equipment; Carroll
fail. The computer checks on both Carroll’s and and Carter both asserted they were headed to a
Carter’s licenses took until at least 6:09 or 6:10 party in Memphis. Smith claimed Carroll and
p.m. Thus the initial traffic stop was reasonable at Carter were previous employees; Carroll informed
least until that time. Officer Solomon that he did not really know
Smith. Smith did not even know the name of one
Smith next argues that, even if the stop was of the men. Further, the stories from Carter and
reasonably extended beyond 6:04 p.m., it was Carroll did not match up with each other—one of
unreasonable to extend the stop beyond 6:12 p.m. the men stated they would be returning to Jackson
in order to conduct a narcotics investigation. The the following day, while the other stated he was
district court disagreed. So do we. unsure when they would be returning. At oral
argument, Smith conceded that these
To justify extension of the initial traffic stop, inconsistencies were “significant.”
Officer Solomon’s reasonable suspicion must
have arisen, at the latest, by 6:12 p.m. “[T]he The district court and Smith are correct that these
tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic- inconsistencies were significant, and we conclude
stop context is determined by the seizure’s they lean in favor of reasonable suspicion. This is
‘mission’—to address the traffic violation that particularly true where, as here, Officer Solomon
warranted the stop and attend to related safety “dr[ew] on [his] experience . . . to make inferences
concerns.” Officer Solomon admitted that, by from and deductions about the cumulative
6:12 p.m., there was not “anything else to do information available to [him] that ‘might well
regarding the investigation of the improperly elude an untrained person.’” Officer Solomon
displayed tag.” Thus, any reasonable suspicion testified that, in his experience, when drivers are
justifying an extension of the stop must have dishonest after being pulled over, it usually
arisen before that point, or continuation of the stop indicates that they are hiding contraband.
would be unreasonable.
Third, Smith and his companions were traveling
Officer Solomon’s interactions with the three men along an interstate known for transportation of
provided reasonable suspicion to conduct a contraband. While we agree with the Tenth Circuit
narcotics investigation, thus justifying an that “the probativeness of a particular defendant’s
extension of the stop. First, Officer Solomon noted route is minimal,” we have consistently
the implausibility of elements of Smith’s story. considered travel along known drug corridors as a
Smith stated that the icemaker he was going to relevant—even if not dispositive—piece of the

20 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal