Justices weigh whether two officer-safety questions unlawfully extended a traffic stop

Brady Hess, counsel for the Commonwealth, told the court that questions asked to ensure officer and roadway safety during an ongoing traffic stop were reasonable and fell within the mission of the stop.

Hess argued that the stop here was not complete because the officer had to ensure the vehicle would not be driven away by an unlicensed driver and that the driver had said she would wait for her son. “It was the second — it was 12 seconds, actually, that the questions were asked,” Hess said, urging the court to defer to the trial court’s factual finding that the stop remained ongoing.

The appellee’s counsel, Catherine Tatum, framed the case as a Rodriguez question about when tasks tied to a traffic infraction are finished. She acknowledged that time alone should not be dispositive but said the court must look to the particular facts in this case and the way the encounter played out. “I don’t think it matters how many seconds it is,” Tatum said, arguing the second round of questions moved beyond the mission of investigating driving on a suspended license.

Justices pressed both sides with hypotheticals: whether an officer who remains on scene to wait for a third party may continue to ask safety questions, whether a prior question about firearms forecloses later safety inquiries, and whether asking about drugs is sufficiently tied to officer safety. One justice summarized the dissent’s framing that the stop was ongoing and that two follow-up safety questions lasting about 12 seconds improperly extended the stop; another asked whether officer safety should be considered part of the stop’s mission.

Counsel for the Commonwealth pointed to body-worn camera footage and testimony that the vehicle’s interior had not been fully checked, that items were piled in the back seat and that the officer could reasonably be concerned about what remained unseen. In rebuttal, Hess told the court those changed circumstances justified a second safety question and asked the court to reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the circuit court’s judgment.

The arguments focused on: (1) whether Rodriguez’s test—that a seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are or reasonably should have been completed—applies here; (2) whether officer-safety questions about weapons or drugs fall within the mission when the stop continues; and (3) how much deference should be given to the trial court’s factual findings about consent and the need to secure the vehicle.

The court did not announce a decision at the hearing.