foreign [Music] welcome to audit the audit where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions this episode covers traffic stops Reasonable Suspicion and vehicle searches and is brought To Us by Ricky pouncil's Channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve on the evening of January 12 2023 officer Jack Lowry of the Bloomington Police Department pulled over area resident Ricky pouncil while he was driving in the city of Bloomington Minnesota on his way home from the gym the interaction that followed was captured on officer Lowry's body camera [Applause] did you saw you on the uh center lane there for a little bit want to make sure I'm watching traffic we have people with no headlights yeah officer Lowry informs Mr Council that he stopped him because he saw him quote on the center lane and later indicated in his police report that Mr Council was stopped for a quote lane violation and for driving 53 miles per hour when the speed limit was 60. under section 169.15 of the Minnesota statutes quote no person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law or except when the vehicle is temporarily unable to maintain a greater speed due to a combination of the weight of the vehicle and the grade of the highway given the limited number of drivers on the road officer Lowry could not reasonably believe that Mr pouncil was violating this statute by driving five to seven miles below the speed limit as the statute prohibits citizens from driving so slowly that they interfere with the normal traffic flow not from merely driving below the speed limit likewise even if Mr pouncil's Speed was somehow impeding traffic the statute allows Drive drivers to reduce their speed when it is necessary for them to safely operate their vehicles and Mr pouncil would have a strong argument that he was driving slowly to deal with the snowy road conditions officer Lowry also claims that he stopped Mr pouncil because he was quote on the center lane and although what he means by this statement is not entirely clear it seems likely that he's claiming that Mr pouncil was drifting between lanes according to subdivision 7 of section 169.18 of the Minnesota statutes quote when any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic a vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single Lane and shall not be moved from the lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety likewise as the Supreme Court of Minnesota held in the 1972 case of State versus elonson that a traffic stop was justified when an officer observed a vehicle weaving within its Lane even when the officer did not believe that the driver violated any traffic laws because the officer quote had a right to stop defendant in order to investigate the cause of the unusual driving although it became clear that officer Lowry was more interested in investigating Mr pouncil for potential criminal activity than enforcing the traffic code the U.S Supreme Court held in the 1996 case of Wren vs United States that the Constitutional reasonableness of a traffic stop does not depend on the actual motivations of the officers involved effectively authorizing so-called pre-textual stops in most situations based on the relevant case law if a court believed officer Lowry's testimony that Mr pouncil was floating between lanes it is likely that it would also find the initial traffic stop to be constitutionally valid we're here tonight [Applause] your license all valid everything like that license and stellid rental car pretty distinct reaction to my to my presence and then going like 55 and middle middle Lane and wasn't really Cooperative with me at all didn't want to tell me where he was coming where he was going there's some Luggage in the backseat too like some not like a couple bags in the trunk he didn't seem super profitable so I'm just gonna pull him out and talk try talking about here Ricky right all right here we go I got no attention writing any ticket I'm going to talk to you back here for a quick second we'll get you out here all right I'm asking all right and what the thing is I don't really need a reason I know under no I don't I'm bench three six three so I just want to talk to you back here back to your car I'll get you all the information 363. officer Lowry do me a favor can you just come around the front here just thank you you just want to go back to my partner it's around the middle of traffic or anything like that hey I know it's cold out here you might feel the need to put your hands in your pocket oh you're asking to put your hands out of your pocket or I can your patio down for your safety right now whatever you want the reason why I'm trying to talk you out here is when I tried talking the first time you seemed super like I tried asking where you're coming going you know said you're headed where back home going home and is home with Eagan no I have a house over here man I mean all those questions are really not necessary where is your address at home tell me I have an address over here I just over here well you can follow me if you want you know this is like you're harassing me yes you are I mean I haven't did anything search me I haven't did nothing yes you did you patted me down where are you coming from Lifetime Fitness Lifetime Fitness yeah what do you do for work what do you mean what I do for work I have my own business what was what are the top of the the bag like workout bag yes workout bags are there I don't know three or four let me ask you this is there anything illegal in the car no is there any uh no it's nothing illegal so guns none of that man it's cold out here I don't know no marijuana no I don't smoke marijuana no cocaine no no I don't do drugs dude I do not do drugs what's your name I'm not sure why you're harassing I'm not turning around yes you are you have me in I'm cold I haven't did anything you got my license man [Applause] despite informing Mr pouncil that he has no intention of writing him a ticket officer Lowry orders Mr pouncil to step out of the vehicle and asks him a series of questions on the side of the road although officers generally have the authority to order drivers and passengers to step out of a vehicle during a traffic stop courts have also consistently held that officers cannot extend the length of a traffic stop to investigate matters that are unrelated to the initial reason for the Stop absent independent Reasonable Suspicion of an additional offense in the 2002 case of State versus Wiegand the Supreme Court of Minnesota explained that quote the scope of a stop must be strictly tied to and justified by the circumstances that rendered the initiation of the investigation permissible expansion of the scope of the stop to include investigation of other suspected illegal activity is permissible under the Fourth Amendment only if the officer has Reasonable articulable Suspicion of such other illegal activity likewise the U.S Supreme Court held in the 2015 case of Rodriguez versus United States that quote an officer May conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop but he may not do so in a way that prolongs the stop absent the Reasonable Suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual as the U.S District Court in Nevada explained in the 2018 case of Stanwood versus Stoltz quote Rodriguez indicates that once the mission of a traffic stop is complete an officer cannot order an individual out of his vehicle and while officer Lowry claims that he's questioning Mr pouncil in order to confirm or dispel the suspicions he has it is unlikely that a court would conclude that officer Lowry's so-called suspicions Rose to the level of reasonable suspicion it is unclear exactly what officer Lowry found to be suspicious about Mr pouncil but he noted in his police report that there were quote multiple criminal indicators and mentioned to his partner that Mr Council was not answering his questions as thoroughly as he would have liked was driving a rental car and had a few bags in the back seat of the vehicle as we have discussed many times here on ATA citizens are generally not required to answer officers questions or otherwise a system with their investigations and refusing to be quote unquote Cooperative when faced with questioning cannot give rise to the Reasonable Suspicion necessary for a Terry stop additionally in the 2022 case of U.S vs Ficus the U.S District Court in Minnesota determined that quote there is nothing inherently suspicious about stowing bags in the passenger side of a car rather than elsewhere in the vehicle and that quote the mere presence of Handbags and an athletic bag in the passenger side of a car does not establish reasonable suspicion that justifies the extension of an investigative stop now while Mr council's bags were in the back seat the same principle applies finally although rental cars are commonly used in drug trafficking the eighth Circuit Court of Appeal fuels which has jurisdiction over Minnesota held in the 1998 case of U.S versus Beck that there was nothing inherently suspicious in an individual's use of a rental vehicle to travel even when taken together a court would likely conclude that the quote-unquote multiple criminal indicators identified by Officer Lowry were insufficient to provide him with Reasonable Suspicion and that he therefore illegally extended the traffic stop when he ordered Mr pouncil to step out of the vehicle for further unrelated questioning after resolving the traffic issue no nothing is cold out here and you have me out here for no reason you don't have problems no you don't you keep you keep cutting me up man my intention I know is I want to search your car for any to confirm or dispel any suspicious what are you searching by Colombia I'm telling them with my car that's fine what I'm going to do right now is going to call my canine see if there's going to alert that's fine if that's what you want to do but you're doing it for no reason you don't have nothing in the car okay nothing nothing you have the right right now [Applause] that's gonna make you happy I don't care can we just get on with this yes we can if you're gonna give me a consent and search your car now I want to make sure I'm not trying to coerce you into it it's cold out here I don't want to be in in the car I can get in the car okay you have no reason to detain me okay so let me get so to run the same page you're saying that I have the right search yeah but you have no reason to detain me because I haven't did anything you have the right to take away your consent anytime if you don't want me to do it you don't have to I just said yes okay if that's what you want to do hey I'm here with my partner I don't want to keep hearing longer than I have to we'll get you going okay you're not tearing the whole car off yes sir after initially refusing when officer Lowry asks for consent to search his vehicle Mr pouncil eventually agrees to allow a search after officer Lowry threatens to get a canine to sniff outside of the vehicle if he does not consent as the eighth circuit explained in the 2003 case of US versus brown quote a consensual search does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the consent was voluntarily given without coercion similarly the Minnesota court of appeals noted in the 2014 case of Knutson versus Commissioner of Public Safety quote for a search to fall under the consent exception the state must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant freely and voluntarily consented the court acknowledged that quote consent that is the product of official intimidation or harassment is not consent at all while also stating that quote involuntariness of a consent to a police request is not to be inferred simply because the circumstances of the encounter are uncomfortable for the person being questioned and that quote consent is coerced when a suspect's will has been overborn and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired however courts have consistently recognized that consent must be more than mere submission to a claim of lawful Authority in the 1968 case of bumper versus North Carolina the Supreme Court held that consent to a search is not effective of when it has only been given after the official conducting the search has asserted that they possess a warrant when they actually do not arguing that prosecutors cannot prove the consent was freely and voluntarily given quote by showing no more than acquiescence to a claim of lawful Authority although officer Lowry did not claim to possess a warrant to search he did inform Mr pouncil that if he refused to consent to a search he would bring a canine unit to sniff the vehicle even though as we discussed earlier in this episode he likely did not have the Reasonable Suspicion necessary to extend the traffic stop it is also likely that a court would conclude that officer Lowry did not have the authority to employ a drug dog at all as the Minnesota Supreme Court held in the Wigan case that in order to lawfully conduct a Narcotics detection dog sniff around the exterior of a motor vehicle during a routine traffic stop quote a law enforcement officer must have a reasonable articulable suspicion of drug-related criminal activity in the 1996 case of U.S versus Latimore an individual argued to the 4 Circuit Court of Appeals that his consent to a search of his vehicle was involuntary when the officer threatened to utilize a drug dog if he refused to consent although the court ultimately rejected this argument because the individual gave consent to the search before the threat was made it noted that because the officer did not possess Reasonable Suspicion the officer's assertion that he would call a drug dog to search the vehicle if the driver refused consent quote would raise serious questions concerning the voluntariness of his consent in this situation although Mr pouncil would have a robust argument that his consent was not voluntary due to officer Lowry's threats of calling a canine given the low standard that prosecutors must meet in order to prove that consent was given voluntarily it is certainly possible that a court would reject this argument and find that his consent was still valid okay thank you thank you all right we're just about done here man last question the um like the bag of pills whatever it is like I was in the vitamins I don't know what kind of vitamins are they just vital no idea what kind of brand name they would be or I do not you can take them if you want man alone there's nothing wrong well I don't want to take anything from you it's not okay you know [Applause] foreign do you want me to try to explain it to you anymore right now I might turn in contact you guys okay thank you very much uh any questions no all right have a great night you're free to go um no taking nothing like that all right after searching the vehicle and finding nothing but some vitamin C capsules officer Lowry allowed Mr pouncil to leave according to the police report Mr pouncil was detained for just under 35 minutes Mr pouncil's nephew contacted me about this interaction informed me that Mr pouncil and his family have contacted the city of Bloomington the Bloomington Police Department and the City attorney for the city of Bloomington about the incident however all three have declined to find any wrongdoing on officer Lowry's part or take any other corrective actions overall officer Lowry gets a c minus because although he did not escalate the situation to a physical altercation he illegally extended the traffic stop without Reasonable Suspicion punitively required Mr Council to stand outside in the cold when he wasn't quote unquote Cooperative enough and manipulatively obtained consent by threatening to make Mr Council wait for a drug dog that he didn't actually have the legal authority to use from the beginning of the traffic stop it was clear that officer Lowry was looking for any reason he possibly could to search Mr council's vehicle most likely hoping to find drugs or some other sort of Contraband and as such he treated Mr pouncil like he was a criminal who was hiding something throughout the encounter these sorts of police interactions not only erode the community's faith in law enforcement but also make the citizens that officers are supposed to protect feel marginalized disrespected and alienated from their own local governments officer Lowry would do well to remember that not every citizen he encounters as a criminal and I would encourage him to review the boundaries of his authority and when he is lawfully permitted to extend a traffic stop because he thinks someone is quote unquote suspicious Mr pouncil gets a b-plus for maintaining a relatively calm and respectful demeanor throughout the encounter challenging officer Lowry's invasive questioning and orders to stand outside in the cold and filing complaints with the Local Government after the interaction although Mr pouncil could have exercised his right to remain silent more effectively and he ultimately consented to a causeless search of his vehicle Mr council is not an auditor and I can understand why he agreed to let officer Lau research his vehicle given the extreme weather and officer Lowry's threats to make him wait even longer that being said it should be noted that Mr pouncil's ability to challenge officer Lowry's actions has been somewhat diminished by the fact that he gave consent to search the vehicle if Mr Council had refused to give consent and officer Lowry had made good on his threat to bring a canine unit Mr pouncil would only need to prove that officer Lowry did not have the Reasonable Suspicion necessary to do so however since he eventually agreed to the search Mr Council must rely on the argument that his consent was not voluntary and although it has legal Merit the case law supporting this proposition is much weaker and less established than the case law about drug dog sniffs without Reasonable Suspicion this interaction demonstrates the importance of refusing to consent to searches and how individuals can limit their ability to challenge an officer's actions if they waive their rights during an encounter let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic you would like us to discuss in the comments below thank you for watching and don't forget to check out my second channel for even more police interaction content [Music]