Opinion ID: 2597314
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Specific travel plans

Text: The Court of Appeals majority acknowledged the existence of substantial authority specifically authorizing a law enforcement officer to inquire about a detained driver's travel plans during a traffic stop without unconstitutionally extending the scope of the stop. State v. Morlock, 40 Kan.App.2d 216, 224, 190 P.3d 1002 (2008). It also acknowledged that [a]lthough courts have uniformly held that a law enforcement officer may question a driver of a vehicle about travel plans, there is limited authority upholding such questioning of passengers.  (Emphasis added.) 40 Kan.App.2d at 225, 190 P.3d 1002. Based upon its view of this research, the panel majority approved Cocking asking both driver and passenger where they were traveling to and from. But while acknowledging some authority to the contrary allowing similar questions, e.g., United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500 (5th Cir.2004), the majority disapproved the following questions by Cocking: (1) asking the 16-year-old driver O'Kelly how long he had been in Phoenix and why he was there; (2) asking passenger Morlock how long he had been in Phoenix, why he went there, and why after flying there he was instead driving back. The majority held that these five questions were not reasonably related in scope to the traffic infraction which justified the stop in the first place. 40 Kan.App.2d at 230, 190 P.3d 1002. Judge Leben disagreed because Morlock's claim that the officer couldn't ask limited questions about his travel plans is contrary both to the rationale of recent United States Supreme Court cases and to cases decided by courts elsewhere. 40 Kan.App.2d at 237, 190 P.3d 1002. We agree with Judge Leben that Cocking's five questions were constitutionally permissible.