Opinion ID: 2601748
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Were the officer's actions during the detention reasonable in scope?

Text: [¶ 23] Trooper Cheser's stated reasons for the traffic stop were the crack in the windshield and an obscured license plate. Mr. Lovato contends that Trooper Cheser's questioning of him was wholly unrelated to either of these potential traffic offenses, and therefore unreasonable in scope. He speculates that if Trooper Cheser had not extended the detention by his questions, it is plausible that Mr. Lovato would have been able to leave the scene before Trooper Green and the drug detection dog arrived. [¶ 24] Mr. Lovato is correct that a traffic stop must be of reasonably short duration, and that there are limits to the questions that may be asked of the detained driver. An investigative detention must be temporary, lasting no longer than necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop, and the scope of the detention must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification. During a routine traffic stop, a law enforcement officer may request the driver's proof of insurance, operating license, and vehicle registration, run a computer check, and issue a citation or warning. The officer may detain the driver and his vehicle only for the period of time reasonably necessary to complete these routine matters. Once the driver has produced a valid driver's license and proof that he is entitled to operate the vehicle, he must be allowed to proceed without further delay. During the stop, an officer generally may not ask the detained motorist questions unrelated to the purpose of the stop, including questions about controlled substances, unless the officer has reasonable suspicion of other illegal activities. Campbell v. State, 2004 WY 106, ¶ 12, 97 P.3d 781, 784-85 (Wyo.2004) (internal citations, punctuation, and footnote omitted). [¶ 25] According to the dispatch records kept by the Wyoming Highway Patrol, Trooper Cheser initiated the traffic stop of Mr. Lovato at 11:01:23 a.m. Trooper Green arrived at the scene at 11:05:38, and reported by radio at 11:06:09 that his drug detection dog had alerted on Mr. Lovato's car. Mr. Lovato concedes that the drug detection dog's alert gave the Troopers probable cause to detain him further, search his car, and subsequently search his person. Thus, the initial detention that Mr. Lovato challenges lasted only from the initiation of the traffic stop until the drug detection dog alerted, a total of four minutes and forty-six seconds. We agree with the district court's conclusion that the limited amount of time that Trooper Cheser was in verbal contact with [Mr.] Lovato does not indicate that Mr. Lovato's initial detention was unreasonably prolonged. Compare Kunselman v. State, 2008 WY 85, ¶ 15, 188 P.3d 567, 570 (Wyo. 2008) (initial traffic detention lasting about ten minutes not unreasonable); Seymour v. State, 2008 WY 61, ¶ 20, 185 P.3d 671, 677 (Wyo.2008) (being detained for less than 15 minutes not unreasonable). [¶ 26] As to the subject matter of the questions, Trooper Cheser testified that he asked the driver several questions regarding his trip, as far as his originhis origin and destination. After identifying the passenger, Trooper Cheser asked Mr. Lovato to clarify the question as far as where he was coming from and where he was headed to. Trooper Cheser then went back to his patrol car to write out the warning ticket. Mr. Lovato's testimony confirmed that Trooper Cheser asked where he was coming from and where he was going. [¶ 27] We have previously recognized travel plans as an acceptable area of inquiry during a traffic stop. O'Boyle, ¶ 48, 117 P.3d at 414. However, extensive and prolonged inquiry into the details of a detained driver's travel plans may be unreasonable. Id., ¶ 58, 117 P.3d at 417. There is no rule specifically prohibiting or allowing questions about travel plans. The rule is one of reasonableness under the totality of the circumstances. Id. [¶ 28] There is no indication that Trooper Cheser used these questions to prolong Mr. Lovato's detention unreasonably. At least one federal court has written that an officer may question a traffic-stop detainee on any topic without reasonable and articulable suspicion so long as the questioning does not prolong the stop. United States v. Malouff, 114 Fed.Appx. 975, 979 (10th Cir.2004) (emphasis added), quoted in O'Boyle, ¶ 51, 117 P.3d at 415. Mr. Lovato's detention was prolonged, and his car was searched, not because of his questioning by Trooper Cheser, but because the drug detecting dog alerted on his car. Having considered the totality of the circumstances, we cannot say that the district court erred in concluding that Trooper Cheser's questioning of Mr. Lovato was reasonable. [¶ 29] We affirm the district court's denial of Mr. Lovato's suppression motion.