Opinion ID: 2630631
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scope of a Traffic Stop

Text: ¶ 28 The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV. [S]topping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a `seizure' within the meaning of [the Fourth] Amendment[], even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979). Although a traffic stop is a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, a reasonable traffic stop is constitutional. ¶ 29 To determine whether a traffic stop was reasonable, we consider two questions: (1) Was the police officer's action justified at its inception? and (2) Was the resulting detention reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference in the first place? State v. Lopez, 873 P.2d 1127, 1131-32 (Utah 1994) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19-20, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). ¶ 30 As to the first question, a traffic stop is justified at its inception when the stop is `incident to a traffic violation committed in [an officer's] presence.' Lopez, 873 P.2d at 1132 (quoting State v. Talbot, 792 P.2d 489, 491 (Utah Ct.App.1990)). See also United States v. Bustillos-Munoz, 235 F.3d 505, 512 (10th Cir.2000) (noting a traffic stop is justified if the `the stop is based on an observed traffic violation.' (quoting United States v. Botero-Ospina, 71 F.3d 783, 787 (10th Cir.1995) (en banc))), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 854, 122 S.Ct. 127, 151 L.Ed.2d 81 (2001). Here, Officer Huntington initiated a traffic stop because he observed Hansen make an improper lane change and he reasonably suspected that Hansen was driving without vehicle insurance. Based on these facts, the initial stop by Officer Huntington was reasonable. ¶ 31 Regarding the second question, during a traffic stop an officer may request a driver's license and vehicle registration, conduct a computer check, and issue a citation. Lopez, 873 P.2d at 1132 (quotations and citations omitted); United States v. Walker, 933 F.2d 812, 815 (10th Cir.1991) (same). Once the purpose of the initial stop is concluded, however, the person must be allowed to depart. `Any further temporary detention for investigative questioning after [fulfilling] the purpose for the initial traffic stop' constitutes an illegal seizure, unless an officer has probable cause or a reasonable suspicion of a further illegality. State v. Godina-Luna, 826 P.2d 652, 655 (Utah Ct. App.1992) (quoting State v. Robinson, 797 P.2d 431, 435 (Utah Ct.App.1990)); see also Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) (stating that a traffic stop must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop). ¶ 32 In this case, after Officer Huntington verified Hansen's license and registration and completed a computer check, the purpose for the initial traffic stop was concluded. Yet, Officer Huntington extended the encounter by questioning Hansen about whether he had alcohol, drugs, or weapons in his vehicle and by asking if he could search his vehicle for these items. Officer Huntington conceded he had no reasonable suspicion of a further illegality to justify the additional questioning. Rather, he engaged in such questioning as a matter of practice. Since the scope of questioning exceeded, without justification, the purpose of the initial traffic stop, the continued encounter was illegal unless some other circumstance justified the additional questioning.