Search & Seizure – Officer didn’t improperly extend traffic stop

Where the Court of Appeals held an officer impermissibly extended a traffic stop, it erred. The mission of the traffic stop was not complete, and the officer’s 12-second exchange, inquiring about weapons, illegal drugs or “anything crazy,” was reasonable under these particular circumstances.

Background

A police officer stopped Nafeesa Rausham Knight-Walker on suspicion of driving on a suspended license. While the stop was ongoing, the officer inquired about the presence of drugs or weapons in the car. The questions took approximately 12 seconds. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals held that these questions impermissibly extended the traffic stop in violation of Knight-Walker’s Fourth Amendment rights and that, as a consequence, evidence seized following those questions must be suppressed.

Stop

Whether an officer acts reasonably during a traffic stop depends on the circumstances the officer faces. No specific time period determines the acceptable duration of a traffic stop; instead, reviewing courts must evaluate “‘what the police in fact do,’ and whether the officers acted reasonably under the totality of the circumstances presented to them.”

In contending that the seizure exceeded the scope of a permissible traffic stop, Knight-Walker chiefly relies on Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015). There, an officer stopped a vehicle for driving on the shoulder of the highway. The officer had finished asking the questions related to the traffic stop, completed the necessary paperwork and returned all the documents to the driver and the passenger of the car.

Nevertheless, the officer detained the driver and the passenger so that another officer could arrive with a dog who would sniff for drugs. An additional seven or eight minutes elapsed before the dog alerted to the presence of drugs. The Supreme Court held that “a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.” Specifically, “[a] seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation, therefore, becomes unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission of issuing a ticket for the violation.”

The situation in this case differs from the one the officers confronted in Rodriguez. In Rodriguez, the officer initiated a separate investigation unrelated to the traffic ticket and he did so after the mission of the traffic stop had ended. Here, the mission of the traffic stop was not complete, even though the officer informed Knight-Walker that he would not arrest her, because he  had a “further need to control the scene.”

Knight-Walker could not lawfully drive her car due to her suspended license, and her passenger likewise could not drive. She informed the officer that she would be calling her son so that he could pick her up and drive her and the car away. As the circuit court observed, a reasonable officer in these circumstances would not simply drive away from the scene, leaving Knight-Walker with her car keys next to a car she could not lawfully drive. Instead, the officer could sensibly wait for Knight-Walker’s son to arrive. The mission of the stop at that point was to ensure that Knight-Walker did not continue to break the law by driving away moments after receiving her summons, not simply to issue a summons.

Practically speaking, the circumstances at hand meant more extended contact between the officer and two persons, Knight-Walker and the passenger. When “there is more than one occupant of the vehicle,” it “increases the possible sources of harm to the officer.” It was also not clear how long it might take for Knight-Walker’s son to arrive.

This more extended period of contact reasonably prompted questions from the officer to ensure that there were no additional considerations that could heighten the danger while he completed his enforcement action. Thus the officer’s 12-second exchange, inquiring about weapons, illegal drugs or “anything crazy,” was reasonable under these particular circumstances.

Consent

The circuit court’s finding that Knight-Walker consented to the search is supported by the record. Among other considerations, after viewing the video of the officer’s interaction with Knight-Walker, the circuit court observed that the officer “was being polite, she was being polite, everybody was being polite.”

There is nothing constitutionally impermissible about an officer asking for consent to search. Asking for consent during the course of a still incomplete traffic stop is not the sort of unconstitutional “detour” envisioned by Rodriguez. Instead, consent is a well-established exception to the rule prohibiting officers from extending a traffic stop to investigate unrelated crimes.

Reversed and final judgment.

Commonwealth v. Knight-Walker, Record No. 250267, April 16, 2026 (McCullough). From the Court of Appeals of Virginia. VLW 026-6-019. 10 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-6-019
Virginia Lawyers Weekly