Page 22 - 2019 A Police Officers Guide

synthetic marijuana and a “Tupperware bowl” containing 17 crack cocaine rocks. Appellant
indicated that there was more cocaine in the vehicle.
Salinas searched the vehicle, but did not find any more cocaine. After searching the vehicle,
Salinas reinitiated contact with the driver and female passenger. The woman’s friend brought a
car seat to the scene for the unrestrained child and Salinas terminated the traffic stop without
issuing a citation to the driver. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion to suppress without
making findings of fact.
[T]he Court of Appeals found that Officer Salinas did not have reasonable suspicion to justify
conducting a Terry frisk of Appellant or to prolong the traffic stop. The court of appeals
acknowledged that upon observing a traffic violation, Salinas was entitled to stop the vehicle,
request the driver’s license and insurance information from the driver, and conduct a computer
check on that information. But the court of appeals held that Salinas did not have reasonable
suspicion to investigate Appellant, the passenger of the vehicle.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A stop and frisk by law
enforcement implicates the Fourth Amendment’s protections. This is true whether the person
detained is a pedestrian or the occupant of an automobile. A Fourth Amendment analysis
regarding an officer’s stop and frisk has two prongs. A court must first decide whether the
officer’s action was justified at its inception. Next, a court must decide whether the search and
seizure were reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the stop in the first
place.
In the context of a traffic stop, police officers are justified in stopping a vehicle when the officers
have reasonable suspicion to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. A traffic stop made
for the purpose of investigating a traffic violation must be reasonably related to that purpose and
may not be prolonged beyond the time to complete the tasks associated with the traffic stop.
During a traffic stop the officer may request certain information from a driver, such as the
driver’s license,
vehicle registration, and proof of insurance, and run a computer check on that information. An
officer is also permitted to ask drivers and passengers about matters unrelated to the purpose of
the stop, so long as the questioning does not measurably extend the duration of the stop.
There is no per se rule that an officer must immediately conduct a computer check on the
driver’s information before questioning the occupants of the vehicle. Once the computer check
is completed, and the officer knows that the driver has a current valid license, no outstanding
warrants, and the car is not stolen, the traffic stop investigation is fully resolved. However, if an
officer develops reasonable suspicion that the driver or an occupant of the vehicle is involved in
criminal activity the officer may continue questioning the individual regardless of whether the
official tasks of a traffic stop have come to an end.
During the course of a detention, an officer may, in certain circumstances, conduct a pat-down
search of an individual to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon. In order to
justify a patdown, the officer must reasonably believe that the suspect is armed and
dangerous, such that the officer can point to specific and articulable facts which reasonably
lead him to conclude that the suspect might possess a weapon. Reasonable suspicion in
this context is based on an objective assessment of the officer’s actions in light of the facts
and circumstances surrounding the detention. The officer’s subjective level of fear is not
controlling. The question is whether a reasonably prudent person would justifiably believe
that his safety or the safety of others was in danger.

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 14 2019 Edition