Opinion ID: 51274
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reasonableness of Detention

Text: We evaluate the legality of a traffic stop under Terry v. Ohio5.6 In determining whether a seizure has exceeded the scope of a permissible Terry stop, we undertakes a dual inquiry: (1) whether the officer’s action was justified at its inception; and (2) whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances 3 United States v. Gonzalez, 328 F.3d 755, 758 (5th Cir. 2003). 4 Gonzalez, 328 F.3d at 758. 5 392 U.S. 1 (1968). 6 United States v. Jenson, 462 F.3d 399, 403 (5th Cir. 2006). 6 that justified the interference in the first place.7 Although in the district court Campos challenged the validity of the initial traffic stop, he no longer argues that the stop of his vehicle for speeding was improper. Rather, Campos argues that the stop was unlawfully prolonged because Officer Flores did not run the records checks until eight minutes into the stop, rendering his detention unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Officer Flores’s actions are plainly permissible under our case law. An officer may request a driver’s license, insurance papers, vehicle registration, run a computer check, issue a citation, and ask about the purpose and itinerary of a driver’s trip.8 An officer may also undertake similar questioning of the vehicle’s occupants to verify the information provided by the driver.9 In addition, we have specifically held that records checks need not be initiated prior to an officer’s initial questioning of a vehicle’s occupants.10 In United States v. Brigham, the officer did not initiate records checks until eight minutes into the initial stop. Prior to running the records checks, the officer asked the driver for his 7 United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 506 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). 8 Id. at 508 (citation omitted); United States v. Shabazz, 993 F.2d 431, 437 (5th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). 9 Brigham, 382 F.3d at 508 (citation omitted). 10 Id. at 510-11. 7 license, insurance papers, questioned him about his travel plans, and sought to verify the driver’s story with the car’s three passengers. We concluded that the officer’s actions were reasonable. Campos argues that his case is distinguishable from Brigham because Officer Flores’s testimony indicates that he purposefully engages in delays in initiating records checks so as to extend the amount of time he has for investigation. We reject this argument. “[T]he touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis is reasonableness,” and “[r]easonableness is measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances.”11 Therefore, as long as Officer Flores’s investigative methods were objectively reasonable, his subjective motives are irrelevant.12 We agree with the district court that Officer Flores’s investigative methods were reasonable. Prior to running the records checks, it was permissible for Officer Flores to request Campos’s license, conduct a pat-down search of Campos, and question Campos and Gomez about their travel plans.13 This process required 11 Id. at 507 (citations and internal quotations omitted) (emphasis added); see id. (“Supreme Court’s insistence on reasonableness rather than prescriptions for police conduct”). 12 See United States v. Causey, 834 F.2d 1179, 1184 (5th Cir. 1987) (en banc) (“so long as police do no more than they are objectively authorized to do, their motives in doing so are irrelevant and hence not subject to inquiry”). 13 See Brigham, 382 F.3d at 508; United States v. Dortch, 199 F.3d 193, 198 (5th Cir. 1999). 8 as long as it did for reasons beyond Officer Flores’s control.14 Campos’s and Gomez’s inconsistent statements regarding their travel itinerary, Campos’s lack of a valid driver’s license, the discovery of $2,000 in cash on Campos’s person, and Campos’s inability or unwillingness to identify the name of the owner of the van all created suspicion, necessitating further detective efforts by Officer Flores. In this case, Officer Flores’s questioning “exemplified a graduated response to emerging facts.”15 Because Officer Flores’s actions were not unreasonable under the circumstances of this case, the detention of Campos did not violate the Fourth Amendment.