I recently won a pre-trial suppression of evidence hearing in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, in a case involving a prolonged police vehicle stop. The police initially pulled the car over for counterfeit inspection stickers. Eventually, the law enforcement officers searched the vehicle and recovered illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia. However, the trial court dismissed the case, concluding that the prolonged detention of my client violated her federal and state Constitutional rights. In the following blog post, I will explain how you can tell if the police have violated your constitutional rights due to a prolonged traffic stop.

The Court Decision

In making the ruling, the judge found that the police exceeded the time permitted to detain the driver and front-seat passenger of the vehicle allowed the law. As a result, the judge concluded that the prolonged detention violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Illegal Traffic Stop Lawyer

I have over a decade of experience providing skilled defending drivers subject charged with drug and weapons crimes after the police conduct an unlawful traffic stop. My practice area includes Montgomery County, Bucks County, Delaware County, Chester County, and Philadelphia County.

Unfortunately, the police may file more serious criminal charges after stopping a driver for a minor PA traffic offense. These traffic stop-related crimes include:

Common PA Crimes Resulting from Traffic Stops

Possession of a controlled substance
Possession of drug paraphernalia
Driving under the influence of alcohol
Driving under the influence of a controlled substance
Illegal possession of a firearm

Contact me at (215) 752-5282 for a free initial consultation, or fill out the confidential contact form for an immediate response.

What is the Most Common Example of an Illegal Delay During a Traffic Stop?

I have represented people in cases involving thousands of police stops related to traffic violations. The most common tactic used by the police is to begin the interaction with the driver by claiming that the stop relates to some minor traffic infraction. Examples include: running a stop sign, failing to use a turn signal, or having a broken brake light.

In most cases, the police transition from questions about the traffic violation to interrogation about the driver’s suspected drug usage and drug possession. This type of encounter is highly coercive and intimidating to the driver. Under these circumstances, the driver usually feels they have no choice but to admit to drug usage, consent to the search of their car, or both.

I currently have a case where a state trooper began questioning my client about drug usage 15 seconds into the encounter after the state police stopped him for a traffic ticket. Did this happen to you? If so, the police may have violated your constitutional rights. Contact me to discuss your case.

Facts of the Bucks County Traffic Stop Case

A police officer in a marked patrol car conducted a traffic stop of a driver and a front-seat passenger in Southampton, PA. My client was the front-seat passenger in the vehicle. Consequently, the driver parked the car in the parking lot of a doctor’s office after the patrol officer activated the overhead lights.

At the same time, the police officer positioned his vehicle directly behind the driver’s vehicle. In addition, the patrol car remained behind the driver’s vehicle for the entire encounter satisfying the legal standard for a “seizure” under Pennsylvania law.

The Initial Police Encounter

The police officer got out of his vehicle and spoke to the driver and the passenger, who remained seated. The driver and the car passenger provided personal identification, vehicle registration, and insurance information to the police officer. Both the driver and passenger denied knowing that the inspection sticker was fraudulent.

The Traffic Investigation Turns into a Criminal Investigation

The police officer returned to his patrol car to verify the occupant’s license, registration, and insurance status. While that was occurring, a second patrol officer arrived as backup. All of the documents were verified as proper. Before completing the traffic ticket investigation, the officer completed the following tasks:

Ran a criminal history of the driver and front-seat passenger
Contacted a police officer in another township requesting any criminal information about the occupants

Within minutes, the police officer in the neighboring township contacted the officer at the scene of the car stop. That police officer informed the officer that the driver and front-seat passenger had a history of criminal arrests and criminal investigations. As a result, the police removed the driver and front-seat passenger from the car.

The Police Search of the Vehicle

Next, the police searched the vehicle and seized heroin, drug packaging, and plastic tubes with drug residue. As a result, the police charged my client with possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a counterfeit inspection sticker. Consequently, I filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence before the Bucks County Justice Center trial date.

The United States Supreme Court case of Rodriguez v. United States

In the 2015 case of Rodriguez v. United States, the United States Supreme Court declared that the police violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution when they extend the duration of a traffic stop investigation without possessing probable cause or reasonable suspicion of a crime.

The Circumstances in Rodriguez v. United States

In Rodriguez, the police stopped the driver for a minor traffic offense. The police completed the traffic investigation and detained the driver until a backup police officer arrived. Finally, the police officers conducted a canine sniff of the vehicle, discovering methamphetamine.

The United States Supreme Court declared that the detention of the driver and search of the vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment of The United States Constitution. The Justices in Rodriguez ruled that police did not have a lawful reason for the continued detention of the driver or the subsequent search of the vehicle.

The Rodriguez Court went on to describe the tasks permitted during a police traffic investigation, including:

Checking the driver’s license
Searching for outstanding warrants
Confirming proof of vehicle insurance
Confirming the vehicle registration

The Rodriguez court ruled that the police officer’s initial justification for the driver’s detention ended as soon as the tasks related to the traffic stop had finished.

Why the Rodriguez Case is Important if the Police Pull You Over

The Rodriguez Court declared that once the police complete the mission of the traffic stop, they must possess probable cause or reasonable suspicion of a crime to continue detaining the driver and passengers.

In addition, the Rodriguez Court stated that without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the police cannot prolong the traffic investigation to conduct any of the following acts:

Run a criminal history check of a driver or passenger
Conduct a canine sniff of the car
Contact another law enforcement agency for criminal history information
Detain and question the driver about illegal contraband in the vehicle

How is Reasonable Suspicion of a Crime Determined by the Courts?

In determining whether the police have established reasonable suspicion of a crime, the state and federal courts will examine the following factors:

The totality of the circumstances of the incident; and
Specific and articulable facts, and
Rational inferences from those facts point to the conclusion that:
The person is engaged in criminal activity
Finally, the police cannot rely on a hunch

How I Won the Case

During the pre-trial hearing, the police officer testified that the driver and front-seat passenger acted nervously during his initial contact. However, the police officer conceded that the allegedly suspicious behavior occurred before he conducted the criminal history check and communication with the police officer in the neighboring township.

The Prosecution Argument

The prosecutor did not argue that the police had probable cause to believe that the car’s occupants had committed a crime when he extended his investigation. Instead, the prosecutor asserted that the nervous behavior of the vehicle’s occupants created a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, justifying the delay in the traffic violation investigation.

My Argument that Suppression of Evidence Should be Granted

I successfully argued that the driver and the front-seat passenger’s allegedly suspicious behavior was insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Notably, the judge agreed and ruled that the communication with the neighboring police officer and criminal history check of the driver and front-seat passenger unlawfully extended the traffic stop. As a result, the judge concluded that the subsequent search and seizure of illegal drugs and contraband from the vehicle resulted from the unlawful investigative detention of the driver and passenger of the car.

The court suppressed the drug and contraband evidence. The district attorney eventually dismissed the case.

Conclusion

In Rodriguez, the United States Supreme Court placed specific limits on how long the police can detain you after a traffic stop for a motor vehicle code violation. They ruled that a law enforcement officer must have probable cause or reasonable suspicion of a crime if:

Police deviate from the mission of the traffic stop investigation (even minimally) before its completion; or
Police complete the investigation of the traffic charge and begin a criminal investigation

Bucks County Drug Possession Attorney

I have over a decade of experience fighting in court for drivers charged with crimes related to police traffic stops in Bucks County, Montgomery County, and the surrounding Pennsylvania Counties. Those crimes include traffic violations, driving under the influence of alcohol, driving under the influence of drugs, drug possession, and firearm possession.