Section 6.4 Duration of a Traffic Stop

• Library: DWI 2014

The fact that a police officer may detain a person for a routine traffic stop without violating the Fourth Amendment does not justify indefinite detention, and the detention may last only for the time necessary for the officer to investigate the traffic violation. Police are not permitted to involuntarily detain motorists longer than necessary to satisfy the purpose of the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion. State v. Sund,215 S.W.3d 719 (Mo. banc 2007). A police officer is permitted to engage in contact with a person without reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory detention if the contact is consensual and the person is free to leave. Id. at 723. An encounter is only consensual if a reasonable person would feel free to disregard the police officer and proceed to go about their business. Id. at 723–24.

In Sund,215 S.W.3d 719, a motorist was stopped after an officer observed the vehicle cross a white line dividing the lanes of the road. Id. at 723. The officer asked for, and received, the driver’s license and insurance card. After satisfying himself that the driver had no holds and was alert and not intoxicated, the officer handed the driver back her license, her insurance card, and a warning ticket with an admonishment to be careful. Id. After handing her back her license and insurance card, the purpose of the traffic stop was over, and the officer was then required to allow her to proceed about her business unless specific, articulable facts arose that created an objective reasonable suspicion that she was involved in criminal activity. Id. (citing State v. Barks,128 S.W.3d 513 (Mo. banc 2004)).

Instead of allowing the driver to proceed on her way, the officer asked her for permission to search her vehicle, but had no reasonable suspicion that would have justified continuing the detention beyond the purpose of the traffic stop. Id. The State claimed that the detention was permissible because the officer was merely engaging in a consensual encounter that did not require the officer to have reasonable suspicion.

The issue in Sund,215 S.W.3d 719, therefore, was whether a reasonable person in the driver’s position would feel free to ignore the officer’s request and just go about her business. Id. at 723. While an officer is not required to inform drivers that they are free to leave, the option to leave must be apparent from the circumstances. Id. at 724 (citing State v. Shoults,159 S.W.3d 441 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005)). Applying a totality of the circumstances analysis, the Sund Court reasoned that a person who is involuntarily stopped by a police officer is not going to feel free to leave unless it is perfectly clear that the person is free to do so.

In Sund,215 S.W.3d 719, the driver had been stopped for a minor traffic violation and was issued a warning with the return of her license and an admonishment to be careful. But the officer then extended the stop by asking her if he could search her vehicle, and when consent was refused, the officer told the driver that if she did not consent, he would call a canine team to sniff for drugs. Id. At the time of the stop, it was nearly 11:00 p.m. on a cold night in February, and the driver was a visitor from Sweden and unfamiliar with the area. She had nowhere to go if she was to simply abandon her car. Under these circumstances, the Court determined that a reasonable person in the driver’s position would not feel free to leave and the encounter was not, therefore, consensual. Because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to detain her further after concluding the traffic stop, the continuing detention was not consensual, and the continued detention was illegal. Id. at 725.

In another case in which a traffic stop was extended on a claim of a consensual encounter with a motorist, the Eastern District affirmed the circuit court’s decision to grant a motion to suppress in State v. Ross,254 S.W.3d 267 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008). In Ross, a driver and his passenger were stopped by the Missouri State Highway Patrol because the trooper determined that the vehicle was exceeding the posted speed limit. The vehicle was a rental, it had an out-of-state plate, the driver was nervous, and the driver was not the person authorized by the rental agreement to drive the car. The passenger was listed on the rental agreement as the person authorized to drive the car. Id. at 270–71. After a check of the defendant’s license showed that it was valid and a records check revealed that the driver had no outstanding warrants, the trooper returned his license and the rental agreement to him and told him he was free to go. Id. As the driver left the patrol car where he had been questioned, he stopped and turned around, apparently intending to ask the trooper a question. The trooper...