When a Sedgwick County sheriff’s deputy asked a passenger for his license, then ran a warrant check on him during a routine traffic stop, it went beyond what the law allowed, the Kansas Court of Appeals ruled last week.
Inappropriate questions unrelated to the traffic violations and the warrant check on the passenger negated the deputies’ search of a van that turned up bags of marijuana, the court said in a 2-1 decision.
The case sounds similar to scenarios from a video I posted last week.
According to court records, Deputy Henry Cocking pulled over a van with Arizona tags in February 2006 on U.S. 54 for failure to signal while changing lanes. The deputy encountered a nervous 16-year-old driver and began questioning him about where he’d come from, where he was headed and other travel plans. First mistake.
“During a routine traffic stop, a law enforcement officer may question the driver about his or her travel plans provided that the questioning is reasonably related to the scope of the traffic stop and the questioning does not unreasonably alter the nature or the duration of the stop. Generally, this is limited to questioning concerning the driver’s place of departure or destination.”Cocking then asked Ronnie Morlock, the passenger, for his license and ran a warrant check, even though the deputy later testified he didn’t at that time suspect any criminal activity. Second mistake, the court said:
“While a law enforcement officer may demand that the driver produce his or her driver’s license and vehicle registration in order to run a warrant check on the driver, a law enforcement officer exceeds the reasonable scope and duration of a traffic stop by running a warrant check on the passengers in the absence of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.”What the court said is that when you’re pulled over for a traffic stop, the officer can check the driver’s license, run a check and write a ticket. Unless they suspect some other criminal activity that’s about all they can do.
The deputies’ further actions, the court said, violated the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee to unreasonable search and seizure. The court said Sedgwick County District Judge Ben Burgess’s should have suppressed the evidence drugs the deputy later found by going through the luggage in the van.
Wichita lawyer Mark Schoenhofer argued the case for Morelock.
2 Comments
The better we understand enforcements authority and duties, then the safer they are and the better we are able protect our rights. There is a reason we have these rights that protect us. I am grateful that the video was posted. It is hard to oppose the questions and actions of an enforcement officer. Understanding a situation before you are in it helps.
Cases like this are what separate us from the civil rights abuses of countries like China and Iran.
Thank God that we have the appeals process.