State v. ReedÂ
2016 N.C. App. LEXIS 964
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Sept. 9, 2014 Trooper Lamm stopped Reed for speeding (78 mph in a 65 zone) on I-95; Reed was driving a rental Nissan with passenger Usha Peart holding a pit bull.
- Lamm checked Reed's license and the rental agreement (which listed Peart as lessee); he told Reed he would issue a warning and gave a written warning.
- After the warning, Lamm asked additional questions and requested consent to search the car; Reed deferred to Peart.
- Lamm asked Reed to “sit tight” in the patrol car while he obtained Peart’s consent; Peart signed a written consent and Lamm found cocaine under a rear seat.
- Reed moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the stop was unlawfully extended after the traffic “mission” ended; the trial court denied suppression, Reed pled guilty, appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Reed) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop was unlawfully prolonged after the mission ended | The officer completed the stop, returned paperwork, and then obtained voluntary consent to search; any further questioning was consensual | The stop was prolonged beyond its mission without reasonable suspicion; detention continued when officer told Reed to “sit tight,” so consent was tainted | Court held the stop was unlawfully extended; suppression warranted (reversed trial court) |
| Whether reasonable articulable suspicion justified detaining Reed beyond the traffic stop | Officer had grounds (nervousness, mismatched rental agreement, travel outside authorized area, air fresheners, lived-in car, dog and dog food, inconsistent travel plans) | These factors are innocent conduct and insufficient, especially because many were observed/relied on after the stop’s tolerable duration expired | Court held those factors did not supply reasonable suspicion to detain beyond the stop |
| Whether Reed’s consent (and Peart’s consent) to search was voluntary and effective | Consent was given after the stop concluded and after paperwork was returned; Reed/Peart were free to refuse or leave | Consent was obtained while Reed was effectively detained (ordered to “sit tight”), so consent was involuntary and fruit of an unlawful detention | Court treated consent as tainted by the unlawful extension and suppressed the evidence |
| Whether post-stop investigative steps (pat-down, seating in patrol car, door closure) were lawful safety measures or unlawful prolongations | State: officer safety justified routine steps and questions | Reed: those steps transformed the encounter into an investigatory detention unrelated to speeding and prolonged the stop | Court relied on Rodriguez principle: even de minimis extensions are unlawful if they prolong the mission without independent reasonable suspicion; found unlawful prolongation |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (traffic-stop "mission" limits permissible duration; de minimis extensions unrelated to mission require reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Bullock, 785 S.E.2d 746 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016) (applied Rodriguez to invalidate extended post-stop interrogation and search)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (officer may conduct limited pat-down for weapons when reasonably believing person is armed and dangerous)
- State v. Williams, 726 S.E.2d 161 (N.C. 2012) (reasonable articulable suspicion required to detain beyond a traffic stop)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (totality of circumstances test; innocent behavior may contribute but must meaningfully distinguish suspect from ordinary travelers)