mendez; seriously? That should never have gone to appeals anyway. The guy was stopped for no registration; legit. His license was being ran and while that was ongoing, it was realized the temp plate on the vehicle was expired. When approaching mendez to inform of that, there was an ongoing conversation about his prior charges so one of the cops asked about whether the was a gun in the car; mendez responded affirmatively and the rest is history.They have further decided that questioning the driver on matters unrelated to the reason for the traffic stop is allowed as long as the questioning does not unduly prolong the detention. (Mendez (9th Cir. 2007) 476 F.3d 1077, 1080; and Johnson (2009) 555 U.S. 323, 325 re: the officer's inquiries may not "measurably extend the duration of the stop.")
there was no prolonging of the detention beyond what was reasonable for the purpose until the idiot ratted on himself. It wasn't the time that was the guys big issue anyway. It was that he didn't believe the cops could ask him about anything not specific to the stop:The arrest occurred only eight minutes after the stop.
Mendez's primary argument, that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to support their questioning, is "premised on the assumption that the officers were required to have independent reasonable suspicion in order to question [him]... because the questioning constituted a discrete Fourth Amendment event."
aren't you the one that says a cop can ask anything he wants to ask?
It appear SCOTUS agrees with you as well but does limit it to not prolonging the stop:
The Supreme Court, however, recently decided in Muehler, that "mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure" unless it prolongs the detention of the individual, and, thus, no reasonable suspicion is required to justify questioning that does not prolong the stop. Muehler, 544 U.S. at 101, 125 S.Ct. 1465 (internal quotation marks omitted)
I also do not see Mendez supporting your argument. Some of the other cases might but Mendez only relies on other cases in the statement that a detention cannot be prolonged by unrelated questioning (which was not even applicable because he detention was not prolonged by any questioning).
Royer;
it was about an outright illegal detention. It had nothing to do with detaining him beyond the time allowed for an initial contact. The issue of Terry in the case was not about time but the scope of the investigation.The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that respondent had been involuntarily confined within the small room without probable cause, that, at the time his consent to search was obtained, the involuntary detention had exceeded the limited restraint permitted by Terry v. Ohio,392 U. S. 1, and that such consent was therefore invalid because tainted by the unlawful confinement.
Held: The judgment is affirmed.
closer but the problem with that case is; the bales of what appeared to be marijuana in the back of the truck is the issue they were talking about resolving their suspicions about. In other words; act or let him go but what is reasonable became the crux of the issue and it was held that the time was not unreasonable.(b) In assessing whether a detention is too long in duration to be justified as an investigative stop, it is appropriate to examine whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant. Here, the DEA agent diligently pursued his investigation, and clearly no delay unnecessary to the investigation was involved. Pp. 470 U. S. 686-688.
sharp:
"yes, brevity but take note, in the case I cited, we are speaking of 8 minutes. In Sharp we are talking about 30-40 minutes. 30 minutes is unreasonable even by the SCOTUS case regarding the dogs (I think 20 minutes was determined to be reasonable). 8 minutes is not comparable.Id. at 970. But the court held the investigative stops unlawful because they "failed to meet the requirement of brevity" thought to govern detentions on less than probable cause. Ibid. Basing its decision solely on the duration of the respondents' detentions, the majority concluded that
"the length of the detentions effectively transformed them into de facto arrests without bases in probable cause, unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment.'
So, if the USSC decides to revers and allow for detentions based on NO reasonable suspicion, then it sets a precedent that should set any civil libertarian afire as it opens the door for detentions without any cause. Indeed, the USSC would be saying that a detention absent even reasonable suspicion would be permissible. This is a scary road to travel down. I suspect they took the case only to reinforce that the detention is NOT unlimited and not remove the reasonable suspicion requirement.
It's already scary Carl. Way too many cops make up reasonable suspicion, or at least claim it to bully the suspect into compliance.
but anyway, I have little doubt a short duration detention is going to be seen as a reasonable intrusion and as such, endorsed by the SCOTUS.
It's that darn word; reasonable, that is being used to remove the rights the Constitution says we have. Anything is possible as long as it is reasonable. It's just that my opinion of reasonable does not match their opinion and obviously, my opinion doesn't count.

