Opinion ID: 616288
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasonableness of the Time Taken to Perform the Traffic Stop

Text: Bowman argues that the District Court erred in determining that the traffic stop was not impermissibly prolonged. Bowman restricts this argument to the time period beginning with the stop itself (at 1:33) and ending when the Trooper handed Bowman the tickets and told him to have a safe trip (at 1:47). Bowman contends that this 14-minute stop was in violation of his Fourth Amendment right because it was longer than necessary to complete the mission of the stop. Bowman adds that the Trooper had no indication during that time period that criminal activity was afoot. Bowman is correct that a constitutionally permissible traffic stop can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407, 125 S.Ct. 834, 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (2005). However, during a traffic stop, an officer may detain the occupants of the vehicle while the officer completes a number of routine but somewhat time-consuming tasks related to the traffic violation. United States v. $404,905.00 in U.S. Currency, 182 F.3d 643, 647 (8th Cir.1999). The tasks include asking for the driver's license, the vehicle's registration, as well as inquiring about the occupants' destination, route, and purpose. United States v. Sanchez, 417 F.3d 971, 975 (8th Cir. 2005). If complications arise during these routine tasks, the vehicle may be detained for a longer period of time. United States v. Olivera-Mendez, 484 F.3d 505, 510 (8th Cir.2007). Whether a traffic stop is reasonable in length is a fact intensive question, and there is no per se time limit on all traffic stops. Id. Bowman relies on United States v. Peralez, 526 F.3d 1115 (8th Cir.2008), in support of his argument that the stop was too long. In Peralez, the Eighth Circuit determined that the officer's stop of Peralez was unreasonably delayed by the trooper's `blended process' of conducting a drug interdiction investigation during the course of a run-of-the-mill traffic stop and that the length of the stop violated the Fourth Amendment. [6] Id. at 1120. The court determined that the officer's questioning unrelated to the reason for the stop more than doubled the time Peralez was detained. Id. In contrast, here, the Trooper spent the 14-minute period at issue completing the tasks attendant to the stop. The Trooper did not ask Bowman questions about possible criminal activity until after the stop was completed, and that questioning was fairly prompted by the Trooper's growing suspicions during the 14-minute stop caused by Bowman's and Flores' obvious nervousness, their inconsistent stories, and other factors. This case is much more akin to United States v. Suitt, 569 F.3d 867 (8th Cir.2009), in which the period in question involved routine questioning related to the stop, and during which the defendant behaved in such a way as to raise the trooper's suspicions that the driver was engaged in criminal activity. As in this case, the officer in Suitt became more and more suspicious during the traffic stop, thus leading him to reasonably believe that criminal activity was afoot and that a search (also via dog sniff) was warranted. As the panel noted in Suitt, An officer's suspicion of criminal activity may reasonably grow over the course of a traffic stop as the circumstances unfold and more suspicious facts are uncovered. Id. (quoting United States v. Linkous, 285 F.3d 716, 720 (8th Cir.2002)). Based on his suspicions, the officer in Suitt asked drug interdiction questions after he issued the warning tickets. The panel ruled that there was reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop for additional questioning after the basis for the initial stop had been resolved. The same reasoning applies here. The Trooper carried out the mission of the initial stop in a reasonable time frame. During that time, the Trooper noticed various things that raised his suspicions that Bowman may have been involved in criminal activity. Thus, the Trooper's prolonged stop of Bowman was legitimate and did not violate Bowman's Fourth Amendment rights. This aspect of the appeal should be denied.