Page 53 - TPA Journal May - June 2018

computer check on that information. But the officer develops reasonable suspicion that the
court of appeals held that Salinas did not have driver or an occupant of the vehicle is involved in
reasonable suspicion to investigate Appellant, the criminal activity the officer may continue
passenger of the vehicle. questioning the individual regardless of whether
the official tasks of a traffic stop have come to an
end.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable
During the course of a detention, an officer may,
searches and seizures. A stop and frisk by law in certain circumstances, conduct a pat-down
enforcement implicates the Fourth Amendments
search of an individual to determine whether the
protections. This is true whether the person person is carrying a weapon. In order to justify
detained is a pedestrian or the occupant of an a patdown, the officer must reasonably believe
automobile. A Fourth Amendment analysis
that the suspect is armed and dangerous, such
regarding an officer s stop and frisk has two that the officer can point to specific and
prongs. A court must first decide whether the
articulable facts which reasonably lead him to
officer s action was justified at its inception. conclude that the suspect might possess a
Next, a court must decide whether the search and weapon. Reasonable suspicion in this context
seizure were reasonably related in scope to the
is based on an objective assessment of the
circumstances that justified the stop in the first officer s actions in light of the facts and
place.
circumstances surrounding the detention. The
officer s subjective level of fear is not
In the context of a traffic stop, police officers are controlling. The question is whether a
justified in stopping a vehicle when the officers
reasonably prudent person would justifiably
have reasonable suspicion to believe that a traffic believe that his safety or the safety of others
violation has occurred. A traffic stop made for the
was in danger.
purpose of investigating a traffic violation must be (emphasis by ed.)
reasonably related to that purpose and may not be
prolonged beyond the time to complete the tasks The court of appeals held that Salinas lacked
associated with the traffic stop. During a traffic reasonable suspicion to conduct the initial pat-
stop the officer may request certain information down of Appellant and that Salinas unreasonably
from a driver, such as the driver s license, vehicle prolonged the stop. We disagree. For the reasons
registration, and proof of insurance, and run a explained below, we find that Salinas was
computer check on that information. An officer is justified in conducting the pat-down search and
also permitted to ask drivers and passengers about that the initial detention had not been unduly
matters unrelated to the purpose of the stop, so prolonged at the point Appellant fled.
long as the questioning does not measurably
extend the duration of the stop. 1. Salinas had reasonable suspicion to conduct a
pat-down.
There is no per se rule that an officer must First, we address the reasonableness of the pat-
immediately conduct a computer check on the down. We note that Salinas had probable cause to
driver s information before questioning the pull the vehicle over and was permitted to order
occupants of the vehicle. Once the computer Appellant, the passenger of the vehicle, out of the
check is completed, and the officer knows that the car for safety reasons. The purpose of the pat-
driver has a current valid license, no outstanding down search is to protect the officer s safety
warrants, and the car is not stolen, the traffic stop during interactions such as this, when the suspect
investigation is fully resolved. However, if an is in close quarters with the officer. The Supreme

March/April 2018 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 49