Page 55 - TPA Journal May - June 2018

Struble asked permission to walk his dog around identity of the passenger as part of the traffic stop.
Rodriguezs vehicle. Rodriguez said no. Struble Notably, the Supreme Court did not comment on
then instructed Rodriguez to exit the vehicle. Strubles interactions with the passenger nor
After a deputy sheriff arrived, Struble walked his indicate that such interactions unreasonably
dog around Rodriguezs car. The dog alerted to prolonged the traffic stop in any way. It was also
the presence of drugs; a bag of methamphetamine reasonable for Salinas to ask Appellant to exit the
was found in the car. vehicle in this case because Salinas was the sole
officer on the scene and he had observed
In total, seven or eight minutes elapsed from the Appellant making furtive movements in the
time the officer issued the warning until the dog vehicle.
indicated the presence of drugs. Rodriguez
challenged the legality of the search, arguing that Most importantly, the prolonged detention in
the officer had unduly prolonged the traffic stop Rodriguez occurred after the officer had
without reasonable suspicion to conduct the dog completed all tasks associated with the traffic
sniff. The Supreme Court agreed. It held that a stop.
seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic
violation becomes unlawful if it is prolonged Unlike the officer in Rodriguez, Salinas was still
beyond the time reasonably required to complete actively involved in the traffic stop when he
the mission of issuing a ticket for the violation. questioned Appellant and he had not yet
completed all aspects of the traffic stop at the
In so holding, the Court noted that traffic stops point that Appellant fled. Most obviously, Salinas
may last no longer than necessary to effectuate the had not yet conducted a computer warrant check
purpose of the stop. In addition to determining on the driver of the vehicle.
whether to issue a traffic ticket, the police officer s
investigation also includes the ordinary inquiries We have previously rejected a prolonged detention
incident to the traffic stop such as checking the argument under circumstances analogous to those
driver s license, determining whether there are presented in this case. In Kothe v. State, the officer
outstanding warrants against the driver, and conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle which
inspecting the vehicles registration and proof of matched the car in a radio dispatch about a
insurance. The Court also noted that traffic stops possibly intoxicated driver. When the officer
are often dangerous to police officers and that an approached Kothe, the driver, he asked for
officer may need to take some negligibly Kothes driver s license. The officer conducted a
burdensome precautions to complete the field sobriety test on Kothe, in conjunction with
investigation safely. The legitimate and weighty running a driver s license and warrant check. The
interest in officer safety, therefore, may outweigh officer concluded that Kothe was not intoxicated
a di minimis intrusion on the occupants Fourth and returned to his patrol car to wait for the results
Amendment rights, such as requiring a driver and of the warrant check. The check showed no
passenger to exit the vehicle during the stop. warrants; however, as the officer prepared to
release Kothe he received a second dispatch which
Salinass actions in this case are more like Officer described Kothe and suggested he may be in
Strubles actions in Rodriguez before he issued the possession of a blue bank bag containing silver
written warning. Both Salinas and Struble coins taken from someones household safe. The
originally interacted with the driver of the officer approached Kothe and asked about the bag
vehicles, then questioned the passenger of the and coins. Kothe gave the officer consent to
vehicles, and both officers sought to determine the search the vehicle. During the search the officer

March/April 2018 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 51