Howard Odell Harrod, III v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 1297161

On July 26, 2015 Officer Walzak observed Howard O. Harrod III stop his vehicle in the roadway at an intersection where no stop was required; Walzak testified his travel was impeded.
Walzak performed a traffic stop, asked for Harrod's license, then returned to his cruiser to run the license and began preparing paperwork; the encounter lasted about 16 minutes.
While Walzak was running information and requesting backup (and asking whether a narcotics canine was available), two backup officers arrived and spoke with Harrod.
During backup officers' questioning, Harrod opened the glove compartment for the rental agreement and an officer observed a scale; officers then handcuffed Harrod and searched the rental car, recovering marijuana, cash, and a scale.
Harrod moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the initial stop lacked reasonable articulable suspicion and the stop was unlawfully prolonged into a drug investigation.
The trial court denied suppression; the Court of Appeals affirmed Harrod’s conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Harrod)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Officer)	Held
Whether the initial traffic stop was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion under Va. Code § 46.2-888	Harrod: brief, momentary stopping does not violate § 46.2-888 and the stop was a pretext for a drug investigation	Officer: observed Harrod stop in the roadway impeding traffic, giving rise to reasonable suspicion to stop under § 46.2-888	Court held officer had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop for impeding traffic; stop lawful
Whether the stop was unlawfully prolonged beyond the time needed to address the traffic offense	Harrod: officer’s calls for backup and a canine and backup officers’ questioning impermissibly extended the stop into a separate drug investigation	Officer: calls for backup and canine were made while officer was actively completing traffic-related tasks; backup questioning occurred concurrently and did not measurably extend detention	Court held the stop was not unlawfully prolonged; calls and backup questioning did not measurably extend the detention and were related to the stop’s mission (safety and completing summons)

Beasley v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 381, 728 S.E.2d 499 (Va. Ct. App. 2012) (standard for viewing suppression-hearing evidence in favor of prevailing party)
Mason v. Commonwealth, 291 Va. 362, 786 S.E.2d 148 (Va. 2016) (investigative stop requires reasonable suspicion)
Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (U.S. 2015) (traffic stop mission limits tolerable duration; unrelated inquiries cannot measurably extend stop)
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (U.S. 2009) (officer inquiries unrelated to traffic stop are permissible if they do not measurably extend the detention)
Matthews v. Commonwealth, 65 Va. App. 334, 778 S.E.2d 122 (Va. Ct. App. 2015) (canine request and unrelated questioning may impermissibly extend a stop; distinguished on facts)
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1977) (officer safety is a legitimate justification for certain conduct during traffic stops)