Opinion ID: 2597314
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The two questions to driver O'Kelly were permissible incidents to routine traffic stop

Text: We first conclude that the panel majority's disapproved questions of driver O'Kelly are permissible because they are not inquiries into matters unrelated to the justification for the traffic stop. See Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S.Ct. at 788. The case of United States v. Rivera, 570 F.3d 1009 (8th Cir.2009), is of particularly useful guidance because it was decided after the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson. During a traffic stop, the trooper explained the reason for the stop and asked for Rivera's driver's license and registration. He also inquired about the purpose of Rivera's trip, and Rivera answered that he was travelling to Memphis to pick up his family. The trooper asked what Rivera's family was doing in Memphis, and Rivera eventually confirmed that his wife went on a trip to visit her mother-in-law. Rivera also told the trooper that he was employed as a painter, and the trooper observed that Rivera had two cell phones with him in the truck. About a minute and a half into the stop, they moved to the rear of the truck. The trooper continued to question Rivera about how his family got to Memphis and whether Rivera had previously been arrested. In response to the question of previous arrests, Rivera answered that he had been issued a ticket a few hours earlier, and presented it. When the trooper asked again about previous arrests, Rivera did not respond, instead giving more details about the ticket he had received. Among other things, the trooper asked where Rivera's mother-in-law lived in Memphis, and Rivera responded that he did not know. The trooper then inquired how Rivera would find his wife when he got to Memphis. After some additional inaudible and confused responses, Rivera eventually said he would need to call her. At about 4 1/2 minutes into the stop, the trooper asked whether Rivera had guns or anything illegal in the truck. When Rivera answered, No, the trooper asked if he could search the truck. Rivera said, Yeah, and the trooper again confirmed, You don't mind if I search the vehicle? Rivera responded, You can look in. 570 F.3d at 1011. The trooper then instructed Rivera to sit in the front seat of the patrol car, where he continued to question Rivera about how he was going to contact his family once he arrived in Memphis. Six minutes into the traffic stop, the trooper provided Rivera's personal information for a records check. While waiting for the results, the trooper continued to ask where Rivera purchased the truck, when he began his trip to Memphis, and how he was going to meet his family in Memphis. Over the next 2 1/2 minutes, the trooper briefly asked again if Rivera had a phone number for a family member in Memphis and inquired about Rivera's employer. Fourteen minutes into the stop the trooper received the records information, two minutes later, Rivera withdrew his consent, and a drug dog later located cocaine in Rivera's truck. The Eighth Circuit rejected Rivera's argument that the stop was unreasonably prolonged during the first 15 minutes by the trooper's mixing drug-interdiction questions with routine traffic stop inquiries. As for the first 4 to 6 minutes of the stop, the Rivera court concluded that much of [the] exchange with Rivera related to the traffic stop. He requested Rivera's license and registration, explained the reason for the stop, and inquired into the destination and purpose of Rivera's trip, his criminal history, and the details of his previous traffic ticket earlier that day. These are permissible incidents of a routine traffic stop. United States v. Long, 532 F.3d 791, 795 (8th Cir.2008); Peralez, 526 F.3d at 1119. (Emphasis added.) 570 F.3d at 1013. Like the Eighth Circuit, we too hold that such travel questions are permissible incidents to a routine traffic stop. Cf. K.S.A. 22-2402 (in Terry stop, officer may demand, inter alia, an explanation of the person's actions). These types of questions were permissible in a number of jurisdictions, including Kansas, even before Arizona v. Johnson . Moreover, the Eighth Circuit's failure to include Johnson in its analysis of this particular issue strongly suggests that court did not believe that Johnson influenced its determination of whether these were matters unrelated to the justification for the traffic stop. See 129 S.Ct. at 788. The Tenth Circuit's approach to this issue before Johnson was similar to the Eighth Circuit's today. In United States v. Alcaraz-Arellano, 441 F.3d 1252, 1256 (10th Cir. 2006), in response to a Kansas deputy's questions, the driver answered that he lived in New York, had traveled to California, had stayed there 1 and 1/2 days, had purchased the car, and was en route back to New York. The court clearly held that the deputy asked only a few questions about travel plans and vehicle ownership before going to his patrol car to issue a warning. Such limited questioning is proper, because an officer may routinely ask about travel plans and ownership during a lawful traffic stop. See Bradford, 423 F.3d at 1156. (Emphasis added.) 441 F.3d at 1259. Similarly, in United States v. Williams, 271 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir.2001), the officer asked about the driver's travel plans during the initial approach to the vehicle and while holding the driver's license and a rental agreement. The driver replied that although his sister was from Chicago, she had traveled from Chicago to Kansas City with a friend. He explained that his family was having an Easter gathering the following day in Denver, and due to his sister's fear of flying, he was driving to Kansas City to pick her up and bring her to Denver. The Tenth Circuit rejected the driver's challenge to the questions, holding that questions relating to a driver's travel plans ordinarily fall within the scope of a traffic stop. 271 F.3d at 1267; see United States v. West, 219 F.3d 1171, 1176 (10th Cir.2000) (stating that questions about travel plans are routine and `may be asked as a matter of course without exceeding the proper scope of a traffic stop.'); State v. Moore, 283 Kan. 344, 347, 154 P.3d 1 (2007) (although apparently not raised as an issue on appeal by the driver defendant, when questioned about his travel plans he stated that he had gone to Las Vegas for an army airborne reunion). The Fifth Circuit has provided its rationale for allowing such questions in United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 508 (5th Cir.2004): An officer may also ask about the purpose and itinerary of a driver's trip during the traffic stop. [Citation omitted.] Such questions may efficiently determine whether a traffic violation has taken place, and if so, whether a citation or warning should be issued or an arrest made. (Citing to United States v. Holt, 264 F.3d 1215, 1221 [10th Cir.2001] [en banc]). For these reasons, we hold that Deputy Cocking's travel questions of O'Kellyhow long he had been in Phoenix and why he was therewere proper because they were permissible incidents to a routine traffic stop.