Seventh Circuit: Questioning Drivers on Travel Plans Is a Permissible Inquiry
This case law update was written by Michael J. Sgarlat, an attorney at the law firm of Shaw Bransford & Roth, where he has practiced federal personnel and employment law since 2015. Mr. Sgarlat works with federal employees to respond to proposed disciplinary and adverse actions, and has experience litigating cases before the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.
In central Illinois, Sheriff’s Deputy Derek Suttles spotted a silver Volkswagen traveling well under the posted speed limit with a covering over the rear cargo area. He messaged State Trooper Clayton Chapman to look out for the vehicle. Trooper Chapman began to follow the vehicle and pulled it over for following another vehicle too closely.
Trooper Chapman approached the vehicle and asked the driver (Janhoi Cole) for his license and registration. Cole had an Arizona driver’s license, and the car was registered days earlier. While standing by Cole’s car, Trooper Chapman saw numerous drinks and snacks, which led him to believe that Cole had been traveling long distances. The only luggage was a small backpack.
About four minutes in, Trooper Chapman began to inquire into Cole’s travel plans. Cole answered that he was heading to Maryland, since his boss resided in Maryland. Trooper Chapman asked Cole who he worked for, and Cole responded that he was a personal chef for two former professional athletes and an ordinary chef. Trooper Chapman asked Cole where his trip began. Cole stated that he met up with some friends and family in Colorado Springs. Trooper Chapman repeated his question, and Cole responded that his trip started in Maryland, then to Cincinnati, then to Colorado Springs, then to Boulder, and then to Maryland. Trooper Chapman asked Cole when his trip began, and Cole stated four or five days earlier.
Trooper Chapman believed that Cole’s story was made up. Trooper Chapman stated that he was going to issue Cole a warning, but that they had to relocate to a nearby gas station for safety reasons. They drove separately to the gas station. There, Trooper Chapman called for a K-9 unit and continued questioning Cole about his travel plans until the unit arrived. 45 minutes after the stop began, a K-9 alerted on Cole’s car. The officers there found large quantities of methamphetamine and heroin.
A federal grand jury charged Cole with possession with an intent to distribute the drugs. Cole moved to suppress the drugs found and his statements during the stop. The district court denied the motion. Cole conditionally plead guilty to both counts, while reserving his right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress. On appeal, Cole argued that Trooper Chapman violated his Fourth Amendment rights by stopping him without reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation and by unreasonably prolonging the stop to inquire into his travel plans.
The court began its analysis by noting that traffic stops are seizures, so they must be reasonable under the circumstances. However, the court explained that traffic stops must remain limited in scope. Quoting the Supreme Court’s decision in Rodriguez v. United States, the court stated “[a] seizure for a traffic violation justifies a police investigation of that violation,” and police may not “detour” from that “mission” to investigate other criminal activity. The court stated that a detour that prolongs a stop violates the Fourth Amendment unless the officer has reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity to independently justify prolonging the stop.
The court first addressed whether Trooper Chapman had a lawful basis to initiate the stop. The court had “little trouble” determining that he did. In this case, the “more substantial issue” was whether Trooper Chapman unlawfully prolonged the traffic stop by inquiring about Cole’s itinerary.”
The court stated that the “ordinary inquiries” incident to a traffic stop, as outlined in Rodriguez, include “checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance.” The court noted that there is “no dispute” that officers may ask other questions that are unrelated to the stop. The key piece is that it does not prolong the stop.
Rodriguez did not list travel-plan questions among the “ordinary inquiries.” But the court advised that Rodriquez should not be read to be an exhaustive list of mission-related inquiries and the benefit of Rodriquez is the analytic framework for answering that question. Namely, the court stated that framework provided is whether, in the totality of circumstances reasonable travel-plan questions like the “ordinary inquiries” are justified by the traffic violation itself or by the “related” concerns of officer or highway safety. The court mentioned that its sister circuits have followed this approach in deciding whether other unlisted inquiries fall within the mission of a traffic stop.
Ultimately, the court held that travel-plan questions ordinarily fall within the mission of a traffic stop. The court found such questions to be “routine” inquiries that reasonably relate to the underlying traffic violation and highway safety. The court was cautious about its holding though, stating that officers do not have a free pass to ask travel-plan questions until they are “subjectively satisfied with the answers.” The questions must remain reasonable, and reasonableness is an objective standard.
Applying these principles, the court held that Trooper Chapman’s questions fell within the mission of the travel stop and did not unlawfully prolong it. Because the questioning was reasonable, the court found that Trooper Chapman complied with the Fourth Amendment. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress.
Read the full case: United States v. Cole
For over thirty years, Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C. has provided superior representation on a wide range of federal employment law issues, from representing federal employees nationwide in administrative investigations, disciplinary and performance actions, and Bivens lawsuits, to handling security clearance adjudications and employment discrimination cases.