Originally Posted by
KeeFus
This was an interdiction stop, plain and simple. After the items (warning ticket, etc.) were returned, the officer engaged the driver in a friendly conversation and consent was granted. Why is this important? Because once an officer gives you these items back the Court has ruled that the traffic stop is over the people who were stopped are free to leave. At that point the people could tell the officer to pound sand and there is nothing that could be done about it. These 2 chose to stay and conversate which led to inconsistent statements and a valid consent search ensued. So, lets go to the decision rendered by the Court and see.
From page 5:
Two men were in the car: Maynor Javier Vasquez sat behind the wheel, and petitioner Nicholas Brady Heien lay across the rear seat. Sergeant Darisse explained to Vasquez that as long as his license and registration checked out, he would receive only a warning ticket for the broken brake light. A records check revealed no problems with the documents, and Darisse gave Vasquez the warning ticket. But Darisse had become suspicious during the course of the stop—Vasquez appeared nervous, Heien remained lying down the entire time, and the two gave inconsistent answers about their destination. Darisse asked Vasquez if he would be willing to answer some questions. Vasquez assented, and Darisse asked whether the men were transporting various types of contraband.Told no, Darisse asked whether he could search the Escort. Vasquez said he had no objection, but told Darisse he should ask Heien, because Heien owned the car. Heien gave his consent, and Darisse, aided by a fellow officer who had since arrived, began a thorough search of the vehicle. In the side compartment of a duffle bag, Darisse found a sandwich bag containing cocaine.