Evidence obtained after traffic stop is admissible

Where police investigators stopped defendant after he disobeyed a stop sign, issued him a warning instead of a ticket, and defendant then admitted he had marijuana in the vehicle in response to one of the investigator’s question, defendant’s motion to suppress the marijuana and a gun found in the vehicle is denied.

Background

Two police investigators who normally did not do traffic patrol saw defendant Jones go through a stop sign. They initiated a traffic stop. After determining that Jones had a valid registration and license, they decided to issue a warning. One investigator worked in vice, the other in narcotics, and neither had a summons book with them.

Natiello, one of the investigators asked Jones if he had anything in the car. Jones admitted he had marijuana. Natiello asked Jones to step out of the vehicle. Jones complied. A search revealed a firearm.

Jones was charged with possession with intent to distribute marijuana and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Jones has moved to suppress the evidence found in his vehicle and his statements to the investigations.

“The issue before the Court is whether City of Norfolk investigators impermissibly extended the length of the traffic stop in violation of Jones’s constitutional rights by asking him if he had anything in his vehicle after the investigators concluded that he was free to leave.

“The Court finds that the investigator’s question about whether there was anything in the vehicle was related to officer and highway safety and thus did not unconstitutionally extend the length of the traffic stop.

“Alternatively, there is no evidence that the traffic stop was extended at all by asking the challenged question.” The motion to suppress is denied.

Legal standard

“A traffic stop that exceeds the reasonable time required by law enforcement to address the traffic infraction violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 350-51 (2015). …

“The Court of Appeals of Virginia has interpreted Rodriguez as rejecting Virginia’s prior stance that a de minimis delay of a traffic stop does not violate an individual’s constitutional rights. … Current Virginia law is that ‘a traffic stop can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission of issuing a … ticket,’ and officers may not conduct unrelated investigations to prolong the stop, absent independent reasonable suspicion ordinarily required to detain the individual. …

“[A]n officer’s question regarding whether there is anything illegal in a vehicle has been held to be ‘related to officer safety and thus related to the traffic stop’s mission.’ United States v. Buzzard, l  F.4th 198, 203-04 (4th Cir. 2021).

Application

Natiello testified that the “general purpose” of his question “was to determine whether narcotics or weapons were present in Jones’s vehicle.

“The Court holds that general inquiries into the presence of illegal items in a vehicle, even at the conclusion of a traffic stop, can under certain circumstances relate to highway safety and the responsible operation of vehicles on the road, and therefore – pursuant to Rodriguez – can be related to the mission of the traffic stop.

“The Court finds that, based on the evidence presented, Investigator Natiello’s question to Jones was within the mission of the traffic stop. …

“The Commonwealth also argues that Investigator Natiello’s question regarding the contents of Jones’s vehicle was permissible because it took only a few seconds and related to officer safety. By contrast, Jones argues that absent reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the extension – regardless of its length – impermissibly prolonged the traffic stop. …

“Investigator  Natiello had not returned  Jones’s driver’s license and registration or informed Jones that he would not be writing a traffic citation when he asked about whether there was anything in Jones’s vehicle. However … Investigator Natiello did not initiate an unrelated criminal investigation without probable cause because Investigator Natiello’s question related to police and highway safety and, thus, the mission of the traffic stop. However, had the question been unrelated to the traffic stop, this case would still be distinguishable from Matthews. …

“Although the record is unclear whether Investigator Natiello asked about the contents of Jones’s vehicle while handing Jones’s documents back or  if he paused for a few seconds to ask the question, Investigator Natiello was pursing the completion of the traffic stop when he asked if Jones had anything in his car.

“Pursuant to Rodriguez … an officer may conduct unrelated inquires if they do not extend the duration of the stop beyond the time reasonably  necessary  to complete the mission of the traffic stop. …

“Therefore, this Court finds that Investigator Natiello’s question of whether Jones had anything in his car did not impermissibly extend the length of the traffic stop in violation of Jones’s Fourth Amendment rights.”

The motion to suppress is denied.

Commonwealth v. Jones, Case No. CR21-713, Aug. 13, 2021, Norfolk City Circuit Court (Lannetti). Gordon D. Fraser for the commonwealth, Kathlyn Flora for defendant. VLW 021-8-100, 10 pp.