This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
- 18 -
The situation in Knight-Walker looks like this:
The mere fact that an officer asked unrelated questions (which necessarily takes some
amount of time) does not mean that the entire rest of the detention is illegal. This is clear under
Rodriguez. If an officer asks unrelated questions or undertakes other tasks that take a few
minutes of time, but incriminating evidence is nevertheless found within the amount of time
“tasks tied to the traffic infractions are—or reasonably should have been—completed,” the
detention has not been unlawfully extended. 575 U.S. at 355. Likewise, if consent occurs (or
reasonable suspicion develops) during the time authorized by the original mission of the traffic
stop there is no unlawful detention, so after-discovered evidence is the product of a lawful, not
unlawful, seizure. But if the officer only obtained consent, or developed reasonable suspicion
after the stop should have reasonably ended but for the delay, evidence discovered after that
might have to be suppressed because the unlawfully prolonged detention tainted the consent or
reasonable suspicion.
To illustrate the distinction in a different context, imagine an officer has reasonable
suspicion that the driver of a car was just exceeding the speed limit. He pulls over the vehicle,
approaches, and before he even introduces himself, he notices a novel in the front seat. If he
Jump to an indexed page (23 of 23)