Opinion ID: 805149
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Automobile Exception Applies

Text: Reasonable suspicion to perform a traffic stop may ripen into probable cause to search a vehicle based on the officer’s interactions with the vehicle’s occupants. See Craig, 198 F. App’x at 463. Under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, an officer may perform a warrantless search of a detained vehicle should the officer have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of criminal activity. Smith, 136 F.3d at 1074–75; Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 466–67 (1999) (citing Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153 (1925)). The automobile exception applies even in nonexigent circumstances and even when the officer’s decision to stop the vehicle was pretextual. See United States v. Cope, 312 F.3d 757, 775 (6th Cir. 2002); Hill, 195 F.3d at 264 (citing Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 812–13 (1996)). In detaining a vehicle, an officer may make inquiries unrelated to the traffic stop, so long as those questions do not measurably prolong the detention and the detainee’s responses are voluntary. Everett, 601 F.3d at 490; United States v. Richardson, 385 F.3d 625, 630 (6th Cir. 2004). An officer is permitted to use those responses as a means of confirming or dispelling his initial suspicions of criminal activity, so long as he does not embark on an unrelated sustained course of investigation. Everett, 601 F.3d at 495. “[Q]uestions relating to travel plans, the driver’s authority to operate the vehicle, or the safety of the officer” are the sorts of classic “context-framing” questions directed at the driver’s conduct at the time of the stop that rarely offend our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. United States v. Stepp, 680 F.3d 651, 662–63 (6th Cir. May 17, 2012) (citing Everett, 601 F.3d at 494–95). Although evasive behavior and nervousness may No. 10-2402 United States v. Lyons Page 20 be considered as part of the probable cause analysis, nervousness alone is insufficient to establish probable cause. Richardson, 385 F.3d at 630; Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 124. In the instant case, the troopers asked Defendant only the most basic of questions within the proper bounds of an investigative stop. Defendant, however, was unable to answer those questions. She could not supply adequate identification permitting her to operate a motor vehicle; she provided inconsistent answers about her travel plans; and her minivan smelled strongly of an odor commonly used to mask the scent of drugs. These observations, considered in their totality along with the facts that permitted the initial stop, established probable cause to search the minivan for controlled substances under the automobile exception.