Summary
The Ninth Circuit held that law enforcement officers violate the Fourth Amendment by prolonging a traffic stop to demand identification from a passenger without reasonable suspicion that the passenger committed a crime. The court recognized that *Rodriguez v. United States* abrogated *United States v. Turvin*, which had permitted brief, unrelated questioning without reasonable suspicion. Because the officers lacked reasonable suspicion that the passenger was underage, violating curfew, or had failed to identify himself under Arizona law, the extended detention was unlawful, and the bullets discovered as a result must be suppressed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether law enforcement officers may extend a lawfully initiated vehicle stop because a passenger refuses to identify himself, absent reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed a criminal offense.
Holdings
- Law enforcement officers may not extend a lawfully initiated vehicle stop because a passenger refuses to identify himself, absent reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed a criminal offense.
Key quotations
“Our question is whether law enforcement officers may extend a lawfully initiated vehicle stop because a passenger refuses to identify himself, absent reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed a criminal offense. We conclude that they may not do so.” (913 F.3d at 862)
“An officer ... may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop. But ... he may not do so in a way that prolongs the stop, absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual.” (913 F.3d at 865)
“Because the stop was no longer lawful by the time the officers ordered Landeros to leave the car, as it had extended longer than justified by either the suspected traffic violation or any offense as to which there was independent reasonable suspicion.” (913 F.3d at 868)
Factual background
On February 9, 2016, police officer Clinton Baker stopped a car for speeding 11 miles over the speed limit. Alfredo Landeros was a front-seat passenger. Two young women were in the back seat. Officer Baker smelled alcohol and believed the back seat passengers were minors, subject to underage drinking laws and a curfew. He asked for their identification and they complied. He then commanded Landeros to identify himself, but Landeros refused. Officer Baker called for back-up, prolonging the stop. Officer Frank Romero arrived and also asked for identification. Landeros continued to refuse. The officers ordered Landeros to exit the car. As he exited, Officer Baker saw pocketknives, a machete, and two open beer bottles on the floorboard. Landeros was arrested. After exiting, Officer Romero obtained consent to search Landeros's pockets and found a smoking pipe and six bullets. Landeros was later indicted for possession of ammunition by a convicted felon.
Procedural history
Landeros was indicted for possession of ammunition by a convicted felon. He moved to suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop. The magistrate judge recommended denial, and the district court adopted the recommendation and denied the motion. Landeros entered into a plea agreement preserving his right to appeal, and was sentenced to 405 days in prison and three years of supervised release. He appealed the denial of the motion to suppress.
Remand instructions
The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.