Suppose a police officer has a valid reason to stop a vehicle. As the officer approaches the vehicle, the officer realizes the reason for stopping the vehicle is no longer valid. Nevertheless, the officer detains the driver to request a driver’s license. Is that detention legal? Should evidence obtained after that detention be admissible in court? These questions were answered by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Dunlap.
Prolonged Traffic Stop Leads to Seizure of Evidence
In the Dunlap case, a police officer ran the license plate of a vehicle owned by Jessica Dunlap and learned Dunlap’s driver’s license was under suspension. The officer also learned Dunlap was a white female. The officer stopped the vehicle and then saw the vehicle was being driven by a black male; not Jessica Dunlap. Dunlap was in the passenger seat.
The officer told the driver the reason for the stop, and the driver acknowledged Dunlap’s license was suspended. The officer then asked the driver if his license was valid. The driver said, “I believe I’m valid. If not, she’s valid”. The officer asked the driver for his license, and the driver produced a state identification.
The officer learned the driver had a suspended license, so the officer arranged to have the vehicle towed. Before the vehicle was towed, the officer seized a handgun from the front passenger door (where Dunlap was seated) and a loaded magazine on the floor of the back seat.
Prolonged Traffic Stop is Challenged in Court
Dunlap and the driver were each charged with Improperly Handling Firearms in a Motor Vehicle. Dunlap filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in the car. Dunlap argued it violated her Fourth Amendment rights when the officer continued the stop after realizing Dunlap was not driving the vehicle with a suspended driver’s license.
The judge denied the motion, and Dunlap appealed. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals overruled the judge’s denial of the motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals concluded the extension of the traffic stop was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, so the evidence discovered as a result must be suppressed. The prosecution appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Ohio Supreme Court Decides Whether Prolonged Traffic Stop was Unlawful
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of the prosecution. The lead opinion of the Court quoted Rodriguez v. United States, which says:“the tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure’s mission – to address the traffic violation which warranted the stop”. The mission, according to Rodriguez, includes checking the driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance.
The lead opinion in Dulap reasoned that the mission of the traffic stop in this case was to ensure the vehicle was being driven by a licensed driver. Accordingly, the mission included asking the driver if he had a valid license and conducting a check of his license. Prolonging the stop for this purpose was not a Constitutional violation, so the evidence found in the car was not obtained unlawfully and should not be suppressed.
The lead opinion in Dunlap was not unanimous. Two justices concurred with the lead opinion. Two justices concurred in judgment only, finding the prolonged detention was valid for other reasons. Two justices dissented, concluding that, once the officer confirmed the owner of the car was not driving, the officer had no justification to prolong the stop.
Prolonged Traffic Stops and DUI/OVI in Ohio
Prolonging a traffic stop is sometimes an issue in DUI cases (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio). After a traffic stop, officers prolong the stop to conduct an OVI investigation which typically includes field sobriety tests. The Dunlap decision makes it easier for officers to justify the continued detention of a vehicle and its occupants after a traffic stop.
About the Author: Shawn Dominy is a leading OVI lawyer in Ohio and the founder of the Dominy Law Firm in Columbus, Ohio. He can be reached through his law firm’s website: Dominy Law Firm.
