Video Proves No Reasonable Suspicion to Extend Traffic Stop

US v. Miller: Miller was a passenger in a car stopped by a Morgantown, West Virginia, police officer around midnight. After the driver came to a stop (17 seconds after the officer turned on his lights), the officer approached the driver and asked for documentation. A brief conversation ensued while the driver looked for her license, which prompted the driver to complain about her renewal ordeal earlier that day at the DMV. The officer returned to his car and printed out a warning for the driver. At the same time, he told a backup officer who arrived that he was “suspicious of the vehicle’s occupants because [the driver] was shaking and tapping on the car door.” He gave the driver the warning ticket, ordered her and Miller out of the car, and ran a drug-sniffing dog around the car. The dog alerted and the subsequent search led to the discovery of firearms in Miller’s backpack. Miller unsuccessfully moved to suppress the firearms, with the district court crediting the officer’s observations that the driver was nervous.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed the denial of Miller’s motion to suppress. Working through the officer’s body camera footage that was introduced during the hearing on the motion to suppress, the court concluded that the district court clearly erred in crediting the officer’s testimony on several key points. That included his contention that the driver did not pull over quickly enough, was nervous based on her conversation about the DMV, and drummed her fingers. The court recognized that “just as officers are not required to complete a traffic stop as quickly as humanly possible, drivers should not be required to pull over as quickly as humanly possible . . . as long as the time it took to stop was reasonable.” As for nervousness, while the officer testified that the driver’s hands were shaking, the video did not show that. In addition, “tapping one’s fingers may just as likely be a sign of annoyance, impatience, or even boredom – any of which can be expected when a person id stopped by a police officer and is awaiting the result of a license check.” 

Congrats to the Defender office in NDWV on the win!