Opinion ID: 168633
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Winterton's Question to Stewart Was Constitutional.

Text: 13 Mr. Stewart bases his first argument — that Winterton violated his Fourth Amendment rights by asking about the presence of weapons or contraband — on United States v. Holt, 264 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir.2001) (en banc). In Holt, a majority of this Court sitting en banc delineate[d] the scope of permissible questioning during a routine traffic stop, id. at 1217, by holding that both the length and scope of a traffic stop are relevant factors in deciding whether the stop comports with the Fourth Amendment, id. at 1227. Discussing the scope aspect, we held that an officer's question about the existence of a loaded weapon in the vehicle did not violate the driver's Fourth Amendment rights because that inquiry was justified on the grounds of officer safety. Id. at 1217. 14 The en banc Holt court, however, split on the question presented here: whether the Constitution permits officers to ask about unloaded weapons or other contraband. Four judges reject[ed] the government's invitation to adopt a bright-line rule allowing an officer conducting a traffic stop to ask the driver about the presence of weapons, absent reasonable suspicion that the driver may be armed and dangerous. Id. at 1230 (opinion of Briscoe, J.). One judge saw no constitutional problem with such questions as long as they did not prolong the duration of the stop or alter its fundamental character as a Terry -type detention. Id. at 1237 (opinion of Henry, J.). And four judges preferred not to resolve that question in that case due to an inadequately developed factual record. Id. at 1226-27 (opinion of Ebel, J.). 15 Thus, following Holt, the constitutionality of inquiries such as Winterton's to Mr. Stewart was an open question. So if Holt were the most recent decision on this subject, Mr. Stewart's argument might well have merit. Unfortunately for him, it is not. The Supreme Court has since adopted Judge Henry's view in Holt by holding that the content of police questions during a lawful detention does not implicate the Fourth Amendment as long as those questions do not prolong the detention. Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 101, 125 S.Ct. 1465, 161 L.Ed.2d 299 (2005). We have applied Muehler in traffic stop cases to resolve Fourth Amendment objections similar to Mr. Stewart's. See United States v. Alcaraz-Arellano, 441 F.3d 1252, 1258-59 (10th Cir.2006); United States v. Wallace, 429 F.3d 969, 974 (10th Cir.2005). 16 We now make explicit what we implied in Alcaraz-Arellano and Wallace: in light of Muehler, the language from Holt approving traffic stop questions only when the officers specifically mention loaded weapons is no longer good law. See Alcaraz-Arellano, 441 F.3d at 1258 (In light of Muehler, we have held that `[a]s long as the [deputy's] questioning did not extend the length of the detention, ... there is no Fourth Amendment issue with respect to the content of the questions.' (quoting Wallace, 429 F.3d at 974)). The correct Fourth Amendment inquiry (assuming the detention is legitimate) is whether an officer's traffic stop questions extended the time that a driver was detained, regardless of the questions' content. Muehler, 544 U.S. at 101, 125 S.Ct. 1465. 17 Here, Mr. Stewart concedes in his reply brief that [i]t certainly can't be said that [Sergeant Winterton's] question in and of itself appreciably extended the duration of the stop. Reply Br. 5. This admission ends our inquiry. We therefore affirm the district court's ruling that Winterton's query — even though it sought information about  any weapons or contraband in the vehicle, R. Vol. III, at 13 (emphasis added), not just loaded ones — was constitutional. 18