IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-1772 Filed February 22, 2017
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JORDAN CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Adair County, Randy V. Hefner,
Judge.
A criminal defendant appeals the denial of his motion to suppress
evidence and subsequent convictions for possession of a controlled substance
with intent to deliver and failure to affix a drug tax stamp. CONVICTIONS
VACATED AND REMANDED.
Dean A. Stowers of Stowers & Sarcone PLC, West Des Moines, for
appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Jean C. Pettinger, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Heard by Danilson, C.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ. 2
MCDONALD, Judge.
Defendant Jordan Campbell appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion to suppress evidence and subsequent convictions for possession of
marijuana with the intent to deliver and failure to affix a drug tax stamp.
Campbell contends the contraband found in his vehicle was discovered only as
the result of an unconstitutional traffic stop and detention.
I.
An Iowa State Patrol trooper was traveling on Interstate 80 when he
observed two vehicles—a white truck and black minivan—with non-Iowa license
plates traveling the opposite direction. The trooper believed the vehicles were
exceeding the speed limit. Using a speed gun, he determined the vehicles were
speeding. As the trooper and the vehicles passed each other on opposite sides
of the interstate, the trooper observed the driver of the truck lean forward, grasp
the steering wheel, readjust himself in his seat, and concernedly watch the
trooper. The trooper turned around in a crossover area with the intent to catch
up with the two vehicles. The trooper contacted a second trooper in the area and
asked the second trooper to watch for the vehicles. The second trooper advised
the vehicles had just passed.
When the first trooper caught up with the vehicles, the minivan was
approximately half a mile behind the truck and had decreased its speed to below
the speed limit, which the trooper found suspicious. The minivan had license
plates from Washington state. The trooper pulled alongside the minivan to
conduct a seatbelt check. He observed the minivan’s driver was stiff-armed with
his hands on the steering wheel at the ten and two positions. The driver initially 3
avoided looking at the trooper. When the driver eventually looked at the trooper,
the driver signaled whether the trooper wanted him to pull over. The trooper
suspected the minivan and truck were traveling together and the minivan was a
“decoy vehicle” to be pulled over so the truck could proceed on without
interference.
The trooper proceeded past the minivan and caught up with the truck,
which was now traveling below the speed limit. The truck had Oregon license
plates. The trooper pulled alongside the truck to conduct a seatbelt check. He
saw the driver, now known to be Campbell, “jamming out to music playing the
drums on his steering wheel.” The trooper believed the driver was nervous but
feigning calm.
Based on his training and experience, the trooper believed he had
probable cause to stop the vehicle for speeding and reasonable suspicion of
some criminal activity, and he initiated a traffic stop. At approximately the same
time, the second trooper initiated a stop of the minivan. At the time the trooper
stopped Campbell, the trooper had already determined he was only going to
issue Campbell a written warning for speeding.
As the trooper approached the truck, the trooper observed several totes
and a fan in the enclosed truck bed. Empty energy-drink cans and bottles and
trash littered the vehicle floor—the trooper believed this to be evidence of “hard
traveling” to avoid unnecessary stops. Campbell had only one key on his key
ring, from which the trooper inferred a third party owned the vehicle. The trooper
asked Campbell for his license, registration, and proof of insurance. Campbell 4
did not have his registration papers because he had only recently purchased the
vehicle. Campbell voluntarily told the trooper he was traveling to Ohio.
The trooper had Campbell accompany him to the trooper’s vehicle. Upon
entering the vehicle, the trooper asked Campbell a variety of questions, which
Campbell answered. The first set of questions related to Campbell’s destination
and purpose and travel schedule. The trooper also asked questions to complete
the written warning: height, weight, eye color, hair color. After asking questions
related to the written warning, the trooper asked Campbell questions regarding
his hometown, his background, and his plans in Ohio. The trooper then asked
questions regarding ownership of the truck and the items in the truck. The
trooper next asked Campbell whether the information on Campbell’s license was
current; whether Campbell had any revocations, suspensions, or warrants; and
whether Campbell had ever been arrested. With Campbell still in the vehicle, the
trooper called dispatch to check the status of Campbell’s license and run a check
for outstanding warrants. While waiting for a response, the trooper continued
with further inquiries regarding Campbell’s travel plans. The trooper asked
Campbell if he was nervous, and Campbell denied the same. The trooper put to
Campbell more questions regarding ownership of the truck and whether
Campbell had roommates in Oregon. The trooper then radioed dispatch and
asked if the checks had come back with anything. The dispatcher responded
they had “replied to [the trooper] a couple times, apparently [the trooper] didn’t
hear [them].” The dispatcher informed the trooper everything was fine.
Undeterred, the trooper commenced additional questioning regarding Campbell’s
purchase of the truck. 5
While the trooper was questioning Campbell in the trooper’s vehicle, the
trooper was exchanging emails with the second trooper that had stopped the
minivan. They exchanged eight emails. The emails discussed Campbell’s
demeanor and physical condition, Campbell’s travel plans, Campbell’s claim he
was traveling alone, information regarding the occupants of the minivan, and the
first trooper’s belief criminal activity was afoot.
Almost seventeen minutes after the trooper brought Campbell back to the
trooper’s vehicle, the trooper told Campbell he was going to give Campbell a
warning and asked Campbell to sign it. After Campbell signed the warning, the
trooper received a phone call from the second trooper. The second trooper
relayed additional information learned from the occupants of the minivan. The
information showed, according to the trooper, the vehicles were traveling
together and Campbell was lying. The trooper proceeded to question Campbell
for three more minutes before he told Campbell he was not free to leave. The
trooper told Campbell he was going to use a drug dog on Campbell’s vehicle and
asked Campbell if he had any contraband in his vehicle to which the dog would
alert. Campbell answered in the negative, but the drug dog answered in the
affirmative. The trooper searched the vehicle without a warrant and found
marijuana. Campbell was arrested on the scene. He was convicted of the
above-stated offenses following a trial on the minutes.
II.
We review constitutional claims de novo. See State v. Walshire, 634
N.W.2d 625, 626 (Iowa 2001). We examine the entire record, including evidence
presented at the suppression hearing. See State v. Jones, 666 N.W.2d 142, 145 6
(Iowa 2003). Although our review is de novo, for policy reasons we afford
deference to the decision of the district court. See State v. Naujoks, 637 N.W.2d
101, 106 (Iowa 2001); In re P.C., No. 16-0893, 2016 WL 4379580, at *2 (Iowa Ct.
App. Aug. 17, 2016) (stating appellate courts should exercise “de novo review
with deference” in “recognition of the appellate court’s limited function of
maintaining the uniformity of legal doctrine; recognition of the district court’s more
intimate knowledge of and familiarity with the parties, the lawyers, and the facts
of a case; and recognition there are often undercurrents in a case—not of record
and available for appellate review—the district court does and should take into
account when making a decision”).
III.
Campbell raises several claims of error in three broad categories. First,
Campbell challenges the initiation of the traffic stop. Campbell contends the stop
was not supported by probable cause because he was not speeding. He
contends the traffic stop was pretextual and pretextual stops are prohibited by
article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. He also contends the trooper
targeted out-of-state motorists in violation of his rights to equal protection
guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions. Second, Campbell argues the
duration and scope of the roadside detention violated his right to be free from
unreasonable search and seizure under the federal constitution. Specifically, he
argues the trooper impermissibly ordered Campbell into the trooper’s vehicle. He
argues the trooper impermissibly expanded the duration of the stop by engaging
in questioning unrelated to the purpose of the traffic stop. He also argues the
trooper impermissibly expanded the scope of the stop by asking questions 7
unrelated to the purpose of the stop. Third, Campbell argues the trooper
conducted an illegal trespassory search of Campbell’s vehicle when the trooper
directed the drug dog to place its paws on Campbell’s vehicle.
We address only the duration of the traffic stop and its investigative scope.
“Because our decision on this issue is dispositive, we need not address the other
issues.” State v. Cox, 500 N.W.2d 23, 24 (Iowa 1993).
A.
We begin our analysis with first principles. The Fourth Amendment to the
United States Constitution provides “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. The “textual touchstone
of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.” State v. Lewis, 675 N.W.2d 516,
529 (Iowa 2004) (Cady, J., dissenting) (citation omitted). The Fourth Amendment
is applicable to state actors by incorporation via the Fourteenth Amendment.
See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 660 (1961). The Fourth Amendment is
implicated when an officer seizes a person. See State v. Reinders, 690 N.W.2d
78, 82 (Iowa 2004). A traffic stop constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the
Fourth Amendment. See State v. Tyler, 830 N.W.2d 288, 292 (Iowa 2013). As
such, a traffic stop must be reasonable under the circumstances. See Whren v.
United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809–10 (1996); State v. Kreps, 650 N.W.2d 636,
641 (Iowa 2002).
We must distinguish between two categories of traffic stops. The first
category is a traffic stop initiated to investigate and enforce violations of the traffic
laws. A stop of this nature is reasonable when the law enforcement officer has 8
probable cause to believe the motorist violated the traffic or safety code. See
Whren, 517 U.S. at 810. “Probable cause exists if the totality of the
circumstances as viewed by a reasonable and prudent person would lead that
person to believe that a crime has been or is being committed and that the
arrestee committed or is committing it.” State v. Bumpus, 459 N.W.2d 619, 624
(Iowa 1990). When an officer “observes a violation of our traffic laws, however
minor, the officer has probable cause to stop a motorist.” State v. Tague, 676
N.W.2d 197, 201 (Iowa 2004). The second category of traffic stop is an
investigative stop based on the law enforcement officer’s reasonable suspicion
the motorist is engaged in criminal activity. “Reasonable suspicion to stop a
vehicle for investigative purposes exists when articulable facts and all the
circumstances confronting the officer at the time give rise to a reasonable belief
that criminal activity may be afoot.” State v. McIver, 858 N.W.2d 699, 702 (Iowa
2015). The categories are not mutually exclusive. See id. Regardless, following
a lawfully initiated traffic stop, the reasonability, and thus constitutionality, of
continued detention is determined by two independent but interrelated
variables—duration and investigative scope. See Berkermer v. McCarty, 468
U.S. 420, 439 (1984) (stating a traffic stop is analogous to a Terry stop); Terry v.
Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 (1968) (holding the “scope of the search must be ‘strictly
tied to and justified by’ the circumstances which rendered its initiation
permissible” (citation omitted)); Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 117 (1998) (“A
routine traffic stop, on the other hand, is a relatively brief encounter and ‘is more
analogous to a so-called “Terry stop” . . . than to a formal arrest.’” (alteration in
original)). 9
B.
Campbell first challenges the constitutionality of the duration of the stop.
Campbell argues the trooper unreasonably, and thus unconstitutionally, extended
the duration of the stop beyond the time necessary to complete the mission of
the stop. Two recent cases are dispositive of the issue.
In Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1614–15 (2015), the
Supreme Court stated the permissible investigative scope of a traffic stop
initiated to enforce the traffic laws included law enforcement inquiries related to
“the traffic violation that warranted the stop” as well as de minimis regulatory
inquiries relating to the enforcement of the traffic laws. See Rodriguez, 135 S.
Ct. at 1614–15 (stating the officer may ask for driver’s license, registration, and
proof of insurance and determine whether there are outstanding warrants against
the driver); see also State v. Coleman, No. 15-0752, 2016 WL 1682128, at *7
(Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2016) (McDonald, J., concurring specially) (“The officer’s
ability to conduct such inquiry is justified, for constitutional purposes, by the
government’s legitimate interests in enforcement of the traffic laws and protecting
officer safety when balanced against the de minimis imposition upon the detained
motorist.”). Rodriguez held the permissible duration of a traffic stop “may ‘last no
longer than is necessary to effectuate [its] purpose.’ Authority for the seizure
thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have
been—completed.” Rodriguez, 135 S. Ct. at 1614 (citations omitted). “If an
officer can complete traffic-based inquiries expeditiously, then that is the amount
of ‘time reasonably required to complete [the stop’s] mission,’” and any stop that 10
goes beyond that point is unlawful. Id. at 1616 (quoting Illinois v. Caballes, 543
U.S. 405, 407 (2005)) (alteration in original).
Subsequent to Rodriguez, the Iowa Supreme Court decided In re Pardee,
872 N.W.2d 384 (Iowa 2015). The question presented in that case was whether
the officer impermissibly extended the duration of a traffic stop initiated to enforce
the traffic laws. In concluding the officer unlawfully extended the duration of the
roadside detention, the Pardee court reiterated the central tenets of Rodriguez.
First, the permissible investigative scope of a traffic stop is to address the
infraction giving rise to the stop and to conduct certain unrelated checks related
to the enforcement of the traffic laws and officer safety. See Pardee, 872 N.W.2d
at 392–93. Second, the permissible duration of the traffic stop is the amount of
time reasonably required to complete the mission of the stop. See id. The
Pardee court concluded the officer could expand the scope and duration of the
traffic stop where the officer had reasonable suspicion the detained motorist was
engaged in criminal activity so long as the officer’s reasonable suspicion was
developed prior to the impermissible extension of the stop. See id. at 396
(stating the test is “whether individualized suspicion to justify” continued
detention “would have existed without [impermissible] delay”). The court held the
officer had not developed individualized suspicion of criminal activity prior to the
unlawful extension of the traffic stop and the stop was unconstitutional. See id.
at 396–97.
We need not discuss the numerous facts and circumstances that may or
may not have supported the conclusion the trooper here developed reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity prior to extending the duration of the stop beyond 11
that necessary to complete the mission of the stop; the State concedes the
officer extended the duration of the stop beyond that necessary to complete the
mission of the stop prior to developing reasonable suspicion Campbell was
engaged in criminal activity. The State argues the Pardee “majority opinion
wrongly analyzed the reasonable suspicion issue” and requests we adopt the
dissenting opinion in Pardee. We decline to do so. This court is “not at liberty to
overturn Iowa Supreme Court precedent.” State v. Hastings, 466 N.W.2d 697,
700 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990).
Independent of the State’s concession, we agree Pardee is controlling on
the issue of whether the trooper impermissibly extended the duration of the traffic
stop at issue. The trooper initiated the traffic stop after observing Campbell
commit a moving violation. The trooper admitted at the suppression hearing he
lacked reasonable suspicion of any particularized criminal activity at the time of
the stop and did not develop suspicion of any particular criminal activity until after
the drug dog alerted on Campbell’s vehicle.
Q. Okay. Now, prior to deploying the dog, you were talking earlier about the fact that you had reasonable suspicion in your mind of some criminal activity, right? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Now what was the crime? What was the crime? A. At that point it was unknown. Q. Okay. Unknown type? A. Correct. Q. Could have been theft? A. Could have been. Q. Could have been robbery? A. Yes. Q. Could have been some kind of fraud? A. Yes. Q. Bank robbery? A. Yes. Q. Could have been anything? A. Correct. Q. All right. Could have been drugs? A. Correct.
“Mere suspicion, curiosity, or hunch of criminal activity is not enough.”
Tague, 676 N.W.2d at 204. If the trooper had reasonable suspicion at all when 12
he conducted the dog sniff, it was the byproduct of a stop that had been
“prolonged past its permissible length in violation of Rodriguez[, Pardee,] and the
Fourth Amendment.” Pardee, 872 N.W.2d at 397. Accordingly, the district court
erred in denying Campbell’s motion to suppress evidence.
C.
Although the State’s concession regarding Pardee is an independent
ground to conclude the district court erred in denying Campbell’s motion to
suppress evidence, we address Campbell’s interrelated claim regarding the
investigative scope of the detention. Campbell contends the trooper unlawfully
expanded the investigative scope of the stop when the trooper asked Campbell
questions wholly unrelated to the purpose of the stop. If this were a case of first
impression, we would agree and hold the investigative scope of a roadside
detention must be reasonably related to the “mission of the stop,” including de
minimis regulatory inquiries relating to officer safety and the enforcement of the
traffic laws, such as a check for outstanding warrants and a request the motorist
produce a driver’s license, proof of insurance, and vehicle registration.1 See
Rodriguez, 135 S. Ct. at 1614–15; Coleman, 2016 WL 1682128, at *7
1 While there is some authority supporting the proposition that an officer can also ask about destination and purpose without individualized suspicion, see, e.g., State v. Aderholdt, 545 N.W.2d 559, 564 (Iowa 1996), the authority is without sound footing. Aderholdt relies on United States v. Barahona, 990 F.2d 412 (8th Cir. 1993). In Barahona, a trooper had pulled the defendant over for driving erratically. See 990 F.2d at 414. The trooper asked about the defendant’s destination and purpose. See id. The Barahona court found the questions permissible because they were “reasonably related to ascertaining the reasons for [the defendant’s] erratic driving and whether he posed a danger to others on the road.” Id. at 416. In other words, the destination and purpose questions in that case were reasonably related to the mission of the traffic stop. See id. Barahona and the cases relying on it, properly understood, only authorize questions regarding destination and purpose when those questions are reasonably related to the justification for the traffic stop. 13
(McDonald, J., concurring specially). In the absence of consent or the
development of reasonable suspicion, all other unrelated inquiries would be
prohibited. This is not a question of first impression, however.
We begin at the beginning. In Terry v. Ohio the Supreme Court set forth
the principles that would eventually develop into the legal framework governing
the constitutionality of seizures not amounting to custodial arrest. See 392 U.S.
at 19. The Supreme Court concluded the reasonability, and thus
constitutionality, of a lawfully-initiated seizure is determined by its duration and
investigative scope. See id.
For some period of time, the Supreme Court continued to recognize the
duration and the investigative scope of a detention were independent tests in
determining the constitutionality of a limited detention. See, e.g., Caballes, 543
U.S. at 419 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (recognizing that “the Court has several
times indicated that the limitation on ‘scope’ is not confined to the duration of the
seizure; it also encompasses the manner in which the seizure is conducted”);
United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 235 (1985) (analyzing a Terry stop in
terms of “length and intrusiveness of the stop and detention that actually
occurred”); Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 (1983) (“[A]n investigative
detention must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate
the purpose of the stop. Similarly, the investigative methods employed should be
the least intrusive means reasonably available to verify or dispel the officer’s
suspicion in a short period of time. It is the State’s burden to demonstrate that
the seizure it seeks to justify on the basis of a reasonable suspicion was 14
sufficiently limited in scope and duration to satisfy the conditions of an
investigative seizure.”).
Subsequent to Terry, many federal circuit courts also recognized the
independent nature of the duration and scope tests:
Drawing upon the common-sense notion that reasonableness includes both a scope and a duration dimension, this circuit had held that police officers may not ask questions unrelated to the purpose of a traffic stop, unless there is an independent source of reasonable suspicion. See, e.g., United States v. Finke, 85 F.3d 1275, 1280 (7th Cir. 1996) (A police officer had sufficient reasonable and articulable suspicions of drug courier activity to justify a speedy, unintrusive criminal record inquiry after a traffic stop.); United States v. Rivera, 906 F.2d 319, 322 (7th Cir. 1990) (Certain of the questions asked by a trooper of an individual during a traffic stop were casual banter or were justified by the trooper’s reasonable suspicion.). This circuit has not been alone in its interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. The Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits are wholly in agreement. See, e.g., [United States v.] Holt, 264 F.3d [1215,] 1230 [(10th Cir. 2001] (concluding that both the length and scope of a traffic stop are relevant factors in deciding whether the stop comports with the Fourth Amendment); United States v. Murillo, 255 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2001) (“During a traffic stop, a police officer is allowed to ask questions that are reasonably related in scope to the justification for his initiation of contact. In order to broaden the scope of questioning, he must articulate suspicious factors that are particularized and objective.” (internal citations omitted)); United States v. Ramos, 42 F.3d 1160, 1163 (8th Cir. 1994) (holding that a police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to ask questions not reasonably related to the stop, but finding the subsequent consent nevertheless to be voluntary).
United States v. Childs, 277 F.3d 947, 956–57 (7th Cir. 2002) (Cudahy, J.,
dissenting).
Post-Terry, Iowa courts also recognized the independent nature of the
duration and scope tests of constitutional reasonableness. See, e.g., State v.
Coleman, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___ WL ___, at *30 (Iowa 2017) (“Limiting both the
scope and duration of warrantless stops on the highway provides important 15
means of fulfilling the constitutional purpose behind article I section 8, namely,
ensuring that government power is exercised in a carefully limited manner.”);
State v. McCoy, 692 N.W.2d 6, 18 (Iowa 2005) (requiring an investigative
detention be limited in terms of both scope and duration); Aderholdt, 545 N.W.2d
at 563 (stating an officer may conduct an investigation “reasonably related in
scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place”);
State v. Armstrong, No. 11-1615, 2012 WL 4513887, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 3,
2012) (holding a “seizure must be limited both in scope and duration”).
More recently, however, the Supreme Court collapsed the investigative-
scope inquiry into the duration inquiry. See, e.g., Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S.
323, 333 (2009) (“An officer’s inquiries into matters unrelated to the justification
for the traffic stop, this Court has made plain, do not convert the encounter into
something other than a lawful seizure, so long as those inquiries do not
measurably extend the duration of the stop.”); Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 101
(2005) (“As the Court of Appeals did not hold that the detention was prolonged by
the [unrelated] questioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaning of
the Fourth Amendment. Hence, the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to
ask [the defendant] for her name, date and place of birth, or immigration status.”);
Caballes, 543 U.S. at 407 (“A seizure that is justified solely by the interest in
issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged
beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission.”). As one court
explained:
While even members of the United States Supreme Court initially viewed the bright-line rule as effectively discarding the scope requirement of a Terry stop, application of Caballes, Muehler, and 16
Johnson by lower courts underscores that those cases modified, rather than abandoned, the second prong of the Terry test. The temporal limitations on Terry stops continue to define the limits of the reasonableness of the scope of the investigation. The questions posed during a traffic stop no longer need to be reasonably related to the initial justification of the stop in order to be permissible under the Fourth Amendment; the length of the stop, however, is limited by the time requirement to conduct a reasonable investigation into the initial justification for the stop.
State v. Leyva, 250 P.3d 861, 868 (N.M. 2011). Under the most recent case law,
there is no subject-matter limitation on the scope of allowable investigation so
long as the unrelated investigation does not prolong the duration of the stop
beyond that necessary to complete the mission of the stop. See Rodriguez, 135
S. Ct. at 16115 (“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.”).
Jettisoning the investigative-scope test as an independent basis for
determining the constitutional reasonableness of a roadside detention and
instead relying solely on the duration test is problematic. First, judging the
constitutionality of a roadside detention solely on the duration of the stop creates
an arbitrary rule. As Justice Thomas noted in his dissent in Rodriguez:
The majority’s rule thus imposes a one-way ratchet for constitutional protection linked to the characteristics of the individual officer conducting the stop: If a driver is stopped by a particularly efficient officer, then he will be entitled to be released from the traffic stop after a shorter period of time than a driver stopped by a less efficient officer. Similarly, if a driver is stopped by an officer with access to technology that can shorten a records check, then he will be entitled to be released from the stop after a shorter period of time than an individual stopped by an officer without access to such technology. .... 17
The majority’s logic would produce similarly arbitrary results. Under its reasoning, a traffic stop made by a rookie could be executed in a reasonable manner, whereas the same traffic stop made by a knowledgeable, veteran officer in precisely the same circumstances might not, if in fact his knowledge and experience made him capable of completing the stop faster. We have long rejected interpretations of the Fourth Amendment that would produce such haphazard results, and I see no reason to depart from our consistent practice today.
Rodriguez, 135 S. Ct. at 1618–19 (Thomas, J., dissenting).
Second, and related, a time-based constitutional rule is incapable of
consistent application in all but the easiest cases. The Supreme Court has
declined to adopt a specific time limitation for the duration of a Terry stop. See
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 711, 711 n.10 (1983) (“We understand the
desirability of providing law enforcement authorities with a clear rule to guide
their conduct. Nevertheless, we question the wisdom of a rigid time limitation.
Such a limit would undermine the equally important need to allow authorities to
graduate their responses to the demands of any particular situation.”). How then
is the suppression court to determine a constitutionally reasonable time to
complete the mission of any particular stop? Will the State be required to
introduce Tayloresque time studies demonstrating the average time to
investigate a particular traffic offense or to dispel reasonable suspicion of criminal
activity? In the absence of such evidence, would an officer be competent to
testify regarding the average duration of a traffic stop with sufficient specificity to
provide meaningful guidance to the suppression court? Will the constitutional
rule vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction depending on the local custom and
practice of the law enforcement officials within the area or depending on the
technology or other resources available to facilitate the investigation? Will the 18
suppression court be required to sit with stopwatch in hand to determine the
exact point at which the officer developed reasonable suspicion to investigate
further and whether it was then too late? Is ten minutes too long to process a
speeding ticket? Ten minutes and twenty seconds? Ten minutes and forty
seconds? It is unknown. If minutes and seconds matter, how can the rule be
applied with any accuracy in those many circumstances where no video footage
of the stop is available? Our suppression courts will have to wrestle with these
confounding issues on end.
Despite the foregoing criticism, Rodriguez is to be commended in one
sense. Rodriguez appears to be an attempt to create a workable constitutional
rule that preserves the objective standard set forth in Whren but that limits the
wholly discretionary use of pretextual traffic stops for drug interdiction and other
general law enforcement purposes. In that was the intent, it seems Rodriguez
adopts a largely arbitrary, unworkable rule while doing away with an
investigative-scope rule that would better achieve the unstated aims of the
Rodriguez court. In resolving the issue on parallel state law grounds, one court
noted:
Having considered all of the circumstances, we conclude the detention inside the patrol car was unreasonable. Trooper Peech’s extensive questioning of Mr. O’Boyle while waiting for dispatch, including questions about what he did for a living, how long he had been doing it, who was filling in for him while he was gone, how long his son had been in Boston, what college his son attended, what courses his son was taking, whether his son lived on campus, where he would stay while visiting his son, why he was driving rather than flying, where his daughter was, how many daughters he had, and the price of airfare from San Francisco to Boston, was not reasonable given all of the circumstances. Mr. O’Boyle was not under arrest and the State conceded Trooper Peech did not have a reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity. Yet, four minutes 19
into the stop, and before he was aware of Mr. O’Boyle’s criminal history, Trooper Peech called for back-up assistance, specifically a canine unit. The unit arrived just two minutes later and parked directly behind the patrol car. By the time Trooper Peech returned Mr. O’Boyle’s license and paperwork, issued the warning and told him to “have a safe trip,” Mr. O’Boyle had been detained and subjected to persistent and sustained questioning that unreasonably expanded the scope of the stop far beyond the speeding offense into a full-blown drug investigation. At no time during this phase of the detention did Trooper Peech ask Mr. O’Boyle for his consent to this type of questioning or detention. Under all of the circumstances, the detention inside the patrol car was unreasonable and violated article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution. In reaching this result, we consider not only Vasquez [v. State, 990 P.2d 476 (Wyo. 1999)] and the older Wyoming cases analyzing our search and seizure provision ([State v. ]George, 231 P. [683, 688 (Wyo. 1924)]; [State v. ]Crump, 246 P. [241, 244 (Wyo. 1926)]), we also consider matters of local and state concern. Saldana [v. State], 846 P.2d [604, 622 (Wyo. 1993)]. The State of Wyoming is bisected north and south and east and west by two major interstate highways. Interstate 80 provides drug traffickers with easy west to east access across the United States and is a well-known route for transporting drugs. DEA Microgram Bulletin, Vol. XXXVII, No. 9, September 2004; NDIC Narcotics Digest Weekly 2004; 3(35):3. The annual average daily traffic on I–80 near Cheyenne, where Mr. O’Boyle was stopped, is over 20,000 vehicles. 2002 Wyoming Vehicle Mile Book (WYDOT). Wyoming citizens operate a significant number of these vehicles. Traffic stops along I–80 are a routine part of the national drug interdiction program. “Although precise figures detailing the number of searches conducted pursuant to consent are not—and probably can never be—available, there is no dispute that these type of searches affect tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people every year.” Marcy Strauss, Reconstructing Consent, 92 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 211, 214 (2001–2002). We previously have expressed disapproval of the use of traffic violations as a pretext to conduct narcotics investigations. Damato v. State, 64 P.3d 700, [706] (Wyo. 2003). In Damato, we joined in another state court’s expression of concern about sanctioning conduct “where a police officer can trail a targeted vehicle with a driver merely suspected of criminal activity, wait for the driver to exceed the speed limit by one mile per hour, arrest the driver for speeding, and conduct a full-blown inventory search of the vehicle with impunity.” Id. (citing Arkansas v. Sullivan, 532 U.S. 769, 771–772 (2001)). Our location along a nationally recognized drug trafficking corridor likely results in a disproportionately large percentage of Wyoming’s comparatively small population being 20
subjected to what have become routine requests to relinquish their privacy rights by detention, invasive questioning and searches—all without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity other than the offense giving rise to the stop. While we acknowledge the importance of drug interdiction, we are deeply concerned by the resulting intrusion upon the privacy rights of Wyoming citizens. This concern, considered together with Wyoming’s traditional interpretation of article 1, § 4 as requiring reasonableness under all the circumstances, provides further support for our conclusion that the detention in this case violated the Wyoming Constitution.
O’Boyle v. State, 117 P.3d 401, 410–12 (Wyo. 2005).
In addition to achieving the same ends as the duration test, the
investigative-scope test better aligns with Fourth Amendment principles. “When
lines need to be drawn in creating rules, they should be drawn thoughtfully along
the logical contours of the rationales giving rise to the rules, and not as artificial
lines drawn elsewhere that are unrelated to those rationales.” State v. Gaskins,
866 N.W.2d 1, 12–13 (Iowa 2015). One of the primary purposes of the Fourth
Amendment is to limit the exercise of discretionary, arbitrary, or invasive use of
law enforcement power. See Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs.’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602,
613–14 (1989) (stating the Fourth Amendment “guarantees the privacy, dignity,
and security of persons against certain arbitrary and invasive acts by officers of
the Government or those acting at their direction”); Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S.
648, 653-54 (1979) (“The essential purpose of the proscriptions in the Fourth
Amendment is to impose a standard of ‘reasonableness’ upon the exercise of
discretion by government officials, including law enforcement agents, in order ‘to
safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions.’”
(citation omitted)); State v. Coleman,___ WL ___, at *30 (Slip Opinion)
(“[C]abining official discretion to conduct searches is designed to prevent 21
arbitrary use of police power.”); State v. King, 867 N.W.2d 106, 123 (Iowa 2015)
(stating the “purpose of search and seizure clauses” is to protect against
“arbitrary invasions by government officials”); State v. Ochoa, 792 N.W.2d 260,
269–73 (Iowa 2010) (discussing historical context of enactment of Fourth
Amendment); State v. Thomas, 540 N.W.2d 658, 662 (Iowa 1995) (holding the
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is a protection against
“arbitrary police intrusion”); State v. Height, 91 N.W. 935, 939 (Iowa 1902)
(discussing how the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 8 of the Iowa
Constitution were intended to prevent the exercise of “arbitrary power”).
What could be more arbitrary than allowing law enforcement officials to
stop motorists at their complete discretion, see State v. Pals, 805 N.W.2d 767,
776 (Iowa 2011) (explaining the “potential abuse of traffic stops as nearly all
vehicles, if followed for any substantial amount of time, commit minor traffic
offenses that could serve as a springboard to” roadside detentions), and subject
them to intrusive questioning so long as the questioning is done in an expeditious
fashion? For example, in this case, the trooper detained Campbell to issue a
warning for speeding but then asked Campbell numerous questions regarding his
personal life, including the identity of the persons with whom Campbell lived, and
whether the officer could call Campbell’s future roommate in Ohio to confirm
Campbell’s travel plans. These questions were clearly unrelated to the speeding
violation giving rise to the traffic stop. As one judge explained, the investigative-
scope rule provides principled limitation on the exercise of law enforcement
power: 22
“[V]irtually, all thoughtful, civilized persons not overly steeped to the point of confusion in the mysteries of ... Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” Royer, 460 U.S. at 520 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting), would agree that the scope of a search or seizure must be part of the reasonableness inquiry. For if a man were stopped for speeding in Utah, it would not be reasonable for a police officer to ask whether he were practicing polygamy. There would be nothing in the circumstances to suggest any basis for such an inquiry even if the duration of the stop was not lengthened. The question itself would be an invasion of privacy. This is a good illustration why the duration of a traffic stop cannot be the only dimension of reasonableness. The subject-matter (or scope) dimension provides limits that are just as binding as the time (or duration) dimension.
Childs, 277 F.3d at 956 (Cudahy, J., dissenting).
The investigative-scope rule has much to commend it. It provides a
principled limitation on the exercise of law enforcement discretion in accord with
the core purpose of the Fourth Amendment. The investigative-scope rule draws
a bright line. It gives law enforcement officials clear guidance on the scope of
permissible conduct. It provides the citizenry with clear notice regarding the
scope of rights upon detention. It provides the courts with a rule that can be
applied consistently across cases and jurisdictions. Further, unlike the duration
rule, it cannot be manipulated and massaged to further investigations unrelated
to the justification for the stop. See Reid Bolton, The Legality of Prolonged
Traffic Stop After Herring: Brief Delays as Isolated Negligence, 76 U. Chi. L. Rev.
1781, 1788 n.55 (2009) (noting departments “can potentially manipulate their
procedures in order to create longer gaps between the beginning of the probable
cause stop and the conclusion of the reasonable inquiry”).
Despite the pedigree and advantages of such a rule, it is disallowed under
present Fourth Amendment case law. Campbell has not raised a state law claim. 23
Campbell’s challenge to the investigative scope of the roadside detention thus
fails.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the Campbell was subjected to a
roadside detention of unconstitutional duration. The unconstitutional duration of
the stop led to the discovery of contraband in Campbell’s vehicle. The
contraband should have been suppressed as the result of an unconstitutional
traffic stop. The district court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to
suppress evidence. We vacate the defendant’s convictions and remand this
matter for further proceedings.
CONVICTIONS VACATED AND REMANDED.