Third Circuit Holds That Brief Criminal History Check Did Not Unconstitutionally Prolong Traffic Stop

In United States v. Hunter, ---F. 4th---, 2023 WL 8405894 (3d Cir. Dec. 5, 2023), the Third Circuit held that a two-minute criminal history check did not unconstitutionally prolong an otherwise lawful traffic stop.  The defendant, Jamar Hunter, was lawfully pulled over by a Pennsylvania state trooper.  The trooper ran a license and warrant check, which came up negative.  The trooper then ran an additional criminal history check, adding one or two minutes to the stop.  When the check revealed that both Mr. Hunter and the passenger had extensive criminal histories, the trooper ordered them out of the vehicle and recovered a handgun during a Terry frisk.

On appeal, Mr. Hunter argued that the criminal history check exceeded the scope of the traffic stop and unconstitutionally prolonged it.  The Third Circuit disagreed.  It noted that under Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015), while officers are not allowed to go off-mission and prolong traffic stops for reasons unrelated to officer safety, such as dog sniffs or extensive questioning, they are allowed to take "negligently burdensome precautions" that allow them to complete traffic stops safely.  Agreeing with the First, Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, the Third Circuit held that a brief criminal history check is a permissible safety precaution that officers are allowed to conduct within the scope of a lawful traffic stop.  

The Court emphasized, however, that the criminal history check in the instant case was reasonable because it only last two minutes.  It warned that a criminal history check may become unreasonable, and therefore violative of the Fourth Amendment, if it is more than "negligently burdensome."  The Court also stated that given the potential for "mischief . . . or worse" that officer discretion creates, it is incumbent on courts to "recognize that reality and to therefore be painstaking in our attention to all the evidence presented in traffic stop cases and the circumstances out of which they arise."

In a concurrence, Judge McKee cited extensive research showing that people of color are disproportionately subjected to traffic stops as well as the risk of harm and death traffic stops portend.  He therefore calls for Fourth Amendment law to evolve to recognize these disparities and ensure "all motorists receive the same degree of protection from an officer's conscious or unconscious bias."

 The opinion is available at: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/213316p.pdf.