Opinion ID: 891705
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State v. Duran

Text: {11} In Duran, we applied the Terry analysis to determine when questions posed about travel plans during traffic stops are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The defendant was stopped for failure to display a license plate. 2005-NMSC-034, ¶ 3, 138 N.M. 414, 120 P.3d 836. During the stop, the police officer questioned the defendant and her passenger about their travel plans and made observations leading him to believe drugs were concealed in the car. Id. ¶¶ 4-14. After completing the traffic citations, the officer continued to question the defendant and requested consent to search her vehicle, which was granted. Id. ¶¶ 14-16. Marijuana was discovered in the gas tank, and the defendant was arrested. Id. ¶ 16. {12} Employing the two-part Terry analysis, we framed the question on appeal in Duran as whether a police officer impermissibly expands the scope of the search or seizure beyond the justification for the initial stop by inquiring into a motorist's travel plans or whether such questions are reasonably related to the initial justification for a traffic stop. Id. ¶ 26. Reviewing cases from the federal courts of appeal, we noted a split of authority in the reasoning but a definite consensus that inquiries into a motorist's travel plans are permissible. . . . Id. The Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits conducted a case-by-case analysis, concluding that questions about travel plans generally were permissible because they are usually related to the purpose of the stop and further valid governmental law enforcement interests and because the intrusion to the public is normally minimal. Id. ¶¶ 28-29. In contrast, the Fifth and Seventh Circuits applied a bright-line test, under which, if the questions asked do not lengthen the stop, the questions are valid. Id. ¶ 31. {13} We adopted the former analysis, relying specifically on United States v. Holt, 264 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir.2001), and United States v. Murillo, 255 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir.2001), because [o]ur case law has consistently disfavored a bight-line test in analyzing Fourth Amendment questions. Duran, 2005-NMSC-034, ¶ 34, 138 N.M. 414, 120 P.3d 836. We rejected the latter approach because it ignores the scope requirement of the second[] prong of the Terry test, which our case law has consistently recognized as appropriate to analyze traffic stops. Id. ¶ 33. Duran articulated the Fourth Amendment analysis to be applied in our courts: [A]ll questions asked by police officers during a traffic stop must be analyzed to ensure they are reasonably related to the initial justification for the stop or are supported by reasonable suspicion. . . . [T]his determination must also include an examination of both the length of the detention and the manner in which it is carried out. The length of the detention should be reasonably limited to the time it takes to complete the underlying justification for the stop. Further, the scope of the questioning should be limited, as well. Id. ¶ 35 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {14} Although Duran concluded that the Fourth Amendment contained a subject-matter scope limitation, that analysis was not determinative to the Court's holding. Duran determined that the questions asked of the defendant and her passenger while the officer was completing the tasks necessary to issue the citations resulted in no additional delay. Id. ¶ 37. The responses to the officer's questions, as well as the officer's observations during the stop, then gave the officer reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may have been afoot. Thus, [the officer] permissibly expanded the scope of the stop by asking about drugs or large amounts of currency, and then requesting consent to search the vehicle. Id. ¶ 38. Duran concluded that the district court did not err by denying the suppression motion. Id. ¶ 42.