State v. BullockÂ, 247 N.C. App. 412

Officer McDonough stopped Bullock on I‑85 for speeding and following too closely; the car was a rental and Bullock was not listed as an authorized driver.
At the scene McDonough asked Bullock to exit, shook his hand, said he would issue a warning, and asked to pat him down; McDonough found about $372 in Bullock’s pocket.
McDonough had Bullock sit in the patrol car and ran his name through databases while asking questions about his destination and travel; McDonough’s K‑9 was in the patrol car.
Bullock consented to a vehicle search but limited consent as to a bag; officers removed the bag, deployed the K‑9, the dog alerted, and heroin bindles were found in the bag.
Trial court denied Bullock’s suppression motion, concluding McDonough had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop and that Bullock consented; Bullock pleaded guilty and appealed.
Court of Appeals reversed: under Rodriguez the stop was unlawfully prolonged by the frisk and by seating/ questioning Bullock while running unrelated database checks; consent obtained during the unlawful extension was not voluntary so the search was invalid.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officer unlawfully extended traffic stop beyond mission of issuing warning	Stop extension was justified by articulable reasonable suspicion (rental car unauthorized user, two phones, cash, nervousness, inconsistent statements)	Extension was unlawful; evidence from search should be suppressed because extension violated Fourth Amendment under Rodriguez	Majority: Stop was unlawfully extended (frisk + seating/questioning while running unrelated database checks); suppression required
Whether frisk/search of person was justified	Frisk was lawful for officer safety or by consent	No reasonable suspicion that defendant was armed/dangerous; frisk unlawfully prolonged stop	Majority: Frisk lacked sufficient specific suspicion and unlawfully extended stop
Whether consent to search vehicle cured illegality	Consent was knowing, voluntary, and was given before search	Consent was tainted because it occurred during and after an unlawful detention and thus was involuntary	Majority: Consent was not voluntary because it was obtained during unlawful extension; cannot validate the search
Whether reversible error requiring vacatur of plea	Trial court properly denied suppression; conviction stands	Suppression denial was error; plea must be vacated and case remanded	Majority: Reversed suppression ruling, vacated plea, remanded for further proceedings

Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (traffic‑stop mission limits duration; unrelated inquiries that prolong stop require reasonable suspicion)
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (dog sniff during lawful traffic stop not a Fourth Amendment violation when it does not prolong the stop)
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) (officer may use reasonable force and make inquiries for officer safety during a lawful stop but may not prolong the detention absent reasonable suspicion)
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (ordering driver out of vehicle for officer safety is allowed; additional intrusion treated as de minimis — later narrowed by Rodriguez)
State v. Myles, 188 N.C. App. 42 (2007) (officer may extend a stop only with consent or reasonable articulable suspicion; consider totality of circumstances)
United States v. Digiovanni, 650 F.3d 498 (4th Cir. 2011) (factors consistent with innocent travel must, in aggregate, eliminate a substantial portion of innocent travelers to supply reasonable suspicion)