Posts Tagged ‘traffic stops’

Traffic Stops, Part II

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

I noted yesterday that a law enforcement officer conducting a traffic stop may order the driver and any passengers out of the vehicle. It’s also reasonably clear that the officer can order the vehicle’s occupants to remain in the vehicle. Robert L. Farb, Arrest, Search, and Investigation in North Carolina 30 & n.160 (collecting cases). But can the officer, without any particularized suspicion that the vehicle’s occupants are committing any non-traffic offense, order one or more of the occupants into his police cruiser? It’s an important question, because if the answer is yes, the officer may also be able to frisk the occupants as a precaution. (More on that below.)

Unfortunately, there’s no clear answer to the question. A leading commentator presents the authority to “direct[] the driver to be seated . . . in the patrol car during the stop” as if it were as well-established as the authority to order the driver out of his own vehicle. 4 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure 387 (4th ed. 2004). But the cases reveal a much more complicated picture. Some, like State v. Lozada, 748 N.E.2d 520 (Ohio 2001), do indeed endorse the practice, though the Lozada court held that “if the sole reason for placing the driver in the patrol car during the investigation is for the convenience of the officer,” the driver may not be frisked.

Other cases, though, reach a contrary conclusion. See, e.g., State v. Berrios, 235 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2007) (holding that an officer may not, as a routine matter, order a driver into a patrol car during a traffic stop, though acknowledging that unusual circumstances might justify such an intrusion). Of particular note in this connection is Bennett v. City of Eastpointe, 410 F.3d 810 (6th Cir. 2005), which observed that there is a split of authority on this issue, but held that officers do not have “carte blanche authority to throw any motorist pulled over for a traffic violation into the back of a squad car while they check the motorist’s license and registration.” Instead, the court held, being ordered into a patrol car is a more serious intrusion that can be justified only if unusual circumstances are present, such as erratic or threatening behavior by the driver.

Perhaps the United States Supreme Court will grant certiorari and review a case raising this issue, or perhaps one of the North Carolina appellate courts will address it. Until then, my advice to officers is as follows:

  • Don’t order traffic stop subjects into your vehicle as a routine practice.
  • If there is a specific reason that you need to do so during a particular stop, such as a need to protect a subject from inclement weather, or a need to control a subject who is behaving in a threatening manner, go ahead, but document your reasons.
  • If you have a choice between ordering a driver or a passenger into your vehicle, choose the driver. After all, it is the driver who committed the traffic violation that resulted in the stop.
  • You can’t automatically frisk a person just because you have ordered the person into your vehicle. For example, if you order a driver into your vehicle because of inclement weather, you may not have a justification to frisk the driver. If, however, the person is behaving in a threatening manner or if there are other indicators of danger, you may frisk the person for weapons.

Anyone have a different view of this issue? I’d be especially interested to hear from officers about how they handle this issue and why they do what they do. As always, if you’re willing to share your practice but don’t want to post a comment, you can email me and ask me to share your feedback without attribution.

Traffic Stops

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

As one eminent Fourth Amendment scholar has observed, “[i]n recent years more Fourth Amendment battles have been fought about police activities incident to . . . what the courts call a ‘routine traffic stop’ than in any other context.” 4 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.3 (4th ed. 2004). Because so many criminal cases arise out of traffic stops, and because the law in this area is evolving fairly quickly, I was asked to teach a short session on traffic stops at the recent conference of superior court judges.

I learned a lot while preparing for the session, and I created a short handout, in the form of a scenario, that summarizes the law on some of the common-yet-difficult issues that arise in connection with traffic stops. For example, when can an officer ask about matters unrelated to the purpose of the stop? When can an officer frisk the occupants of the vehicle? When can an officer have a drug dog sniff the exterior of the vehicle?

Since the answers to some of these questions are unclear, while the answers to others were surprising to me, I thought I’d share the handout, which may be of interest not just to judges and lawyers, but to officers and others as well. To whet your appetite, the beginning of the handout is cut and pasted below. The full handout is available here.

[Beginning of handout]

Officer Ollie Ogletree is on patrol one Saturday night at about 10:00 p.m. He’s driving along a major commercial road in a lower-middle-class section of town when he sees a 2002 Chevrolet Malibu with three occupants turn without signaling, causing a following car to brake suddenly. Although an accident does not result, Officer Ogletree activates his blue lights and pulls the Malibu over for unsafe movement in violation of G.S. 20-154. The Malibu pulls over promptly. The driver is a male in his late 20s. The front-seat passenger is a female of the same age. The rear-seat passenger is a teenage female.

  1. Officer Ogletree orders all of the occupants out of the vehicle. OK?

Yes. In the interest of officer safety, an officer may order any or all of a vehicle’s occupants out of the vehicle during a traffic stop. Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (driver); Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997) (passengers).

The occupants comply with Officer Ogletree’s order to exit the vehicle. Although they are compliant, he is concerned for his safety. A fellow officer was shot the week before during a traffic stop, it is nighttime, and the vehicle has multiple occupants. Officer Ogletree decides to frisk the two adults. OK?

[Read the handout to find out.]

Field Sobriety Tests During Traffic Stops

Tuesday, April 14th, 2009

Several recent inquiries have been variants of the following question: can an officer administer field sobriety tests during a routine traffic stop? In other words, if an officer has reasonable suspicion that a driver has committed a traffic violation, and has a hunch, not rising to the level of reasonable suspicion, that the driver is impaired, may the officer administer field sobriety tests to the driver during the lawful stop?

Absent the consent of the driver, the answer is probably no. First, administering the field sobriety tests would likely prolong the stop. Although the courts have been willing to accept minimal delays in other contexts, see, e.g., State v. Brimmer, 187 N.C. App. 451 (2007), it is doubtful that field sobriety tests could be administered without a more substantial delay, which would render the stop unreasonably protracted.

Even if administering the field sobriety tests wouldn’t significantly prolong the stop, several courts have held that administering such tests constitutes a separate intrusion for Fourth Amendment purposes – and thus, that separate reasonable suspicion must support the administration of such tests. See generally State v. Royer, 753 N.W.2d 333 (Neb. 2008) (“[F]ield sobriety tests may be justified by an officer’s reasonable suspicion based upon specific articulable facts that a driver is under the influence of alcohol or drugs.”); State v. Buell, 175 P.3d 216 (Idaho Ct. App. 2008) (“[F]ield sobriety tests may be analogized to a warrantless pat-down search of an individual for weapons, conducted during an investigative detention . . . [they] may be conducted without consent during an otherwise permissible detention, where they are justified by reasonable suspicion of DUI.”). On this analysis, the administration of field sobriety tests is unlike questioning, see Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005), or canine sniffs, see Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005), which are not separate Fourth Amendment intrusions and may be conducted during otherwise lawful stops without any additional justification.