Opinion ID: 222783
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: The Detention Was Reasonably Related in Scope to the Circumstances of the Traffic Stop.

Text: In addition to being justified at its inception, a lawful traffic stop must be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place. Terry, 392 U.S. at 20, 88 S.Ct. 1868. That is, [t]he investigative detention usually must last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop, and the scope of the detention must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification. Hunnicutt, 135 F.3d at 1349 (internal quotation marks omitted). In accordance with these principles, we have held that a law enforcement officer conducting a traffic stop may generally request a driver's license, registration, and other required papers, run requisite computer checks, and issue citations or warnings as appropriate. United States v. Rosborough, 366 F.3d 1145, 1148 (10th Cir. 2004). In addition, an officer may ask questions, whether or not related to the purpose of a traffic stop, if they do not excessively prolong the stop. United States v. Simpson, 609 F.3d 1140, 1146 n. 1 (10th Cir.2010). However, [o]nce an officer returns the driver's license and registration, the traffic stop has ended and questioning must cease; at that point, the driver must be free to leave. United States v. Villa, 589 F.3d 1334, 1339 (10th Cir.2009). Thus, [a] seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407, 125 S.Ct. 834, 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (2005). Nonetheless, a traffic stop may be expanded beyond its original purpose if during the initial stop the detaining officer acquires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, that is to say the officer must acquire a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity. White, 584 F.3d at 949 (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, further questioning unrelated to the initial stop is permissible if the initial detention has become a consensual encounter. Hunnicutt, 135 F.3d at 1349. Mr. Shigemura argues that the detention in this case violated his Fourth Amendment rights because (1) the time it took Trooper Hyde to issue a warning ticket for a lane infraction  21 minutes and 45 seconds  was unreasonable, (2) Mr. Shigemura did not consent to additional questions after Trooper Hyde returned his license, and (3) Trooper Hyde did not have reasonable suspicion to detain Mr. Shigemura further once he had returned Mr. Shigemura's license. As discussed below, Mr. Shigemura's arguments are unavailing because (1) the duration of the stop was reasonable under the circumstances and (2) Trooper Hyde had reasonable suspicion to prolong the detention by the time he returned Mr. Shigemura's license and gave him a copy of the warning notice. (a) The duration of the stop was not unreasonable under the circumstances. Based on the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, the district court found that Trooper Hyde diligently obtained the information he needed in order to accomplish the lawful purpose for which he stopped [Mr. Shigemura and Mr. Kitchell], which was issuing a warning for a traffic violation, and that any delay that occurred was due to [Trooper Hyde's] need to move back and forth between his patrol car and Defendants' vehicle in order to question all three men. (SROA, vol. i at 153.) The court further found that Trooper Hyde finished writing the warning ticket and informed Mr. Shigemura that he was free to go shortly after performing the other permissible aspects of the stop, including obtaining the defendants' information, performing criminal-history checks, and confirming that none of the defendants had outstanding warrants. These findings by the district court were not clearly erroneous. A review of the traffic stop, broken down by the tasks Trooper Hyde completed, indicates that the overall duration of the stop was not unreasonable under the circumstances. See supra Part I.A. In the course of the stop, Trooper Hyde performed such reasonable tasks as (1) explaining the reason for the stop, (2) obtaining information from all three occupants of the vehicle, (3) examining the car rental agreement and inquiring as to why Mr. Shigemura was driving when the car was leased to Mr. Kitchell, and (4) requesting and waiting for a warrant check to be performed on all three individuals. Indeed, the warrant check alone took almost nine minutes to complete. And, as the district court correctly noted, Trooper Hyde had to walk back and forth between cars more than once to obtain and confirm information. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the twenty-two minute interval from the beginning of the stop to the point at which Trooper Hyde returned Mr. Shigemura's driver's license was unreasonable.