Whether a de minimis extension of a traffic stop through unrelated investigatory questioning violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable seizures

No question identified. : his rearview mirror and for not wearing a seatbelt. After the trooper obtained Mr. Puckett’s license and insurance information, he asked Mr. Puckett whether he had ever been arrested. Mr. Puckett said he had “over ten years ago” and, in response to further questioning, acknowledged he was a registered sex offender. The trooper then asked Mr. Puckett to join him in the patrol car, and Mr. Puckett complied. In the car, the trooper ran a computerized check and, while the check was running, asked Mr. Puckett about his criminal history, including if he was “on the straight and narrow,” if he had “[anything] going on,” and if he had ever been arrested for “drugs or anything like that.” Within two minutes, the computer system was done. It had populated Mr. Puckett’s criminal history, checked his license and registration, and provided information about his sex offender registration. After the computer check had finished, the trooper continued questioning Mr. Puckett. He asked if Mr. Puckett had anything illegal, to which Mr. Puckett said no. He asked if Mr. Puckett had any drugs or stolen items, to which Mr. Puckett said no. After 20 seconds of this questioning, the trooper said, “you don’t mind me searching your vehicle,” and Mr. Puckett acquiesced. During the vehicle search, the trooper “grabbed” Mr. Puckett’s cell phone, and the screen lit up. The trooper saw social media icons on the screen and would later testify that he had not seen social media accounts listed on Mr. Puckett’s sex offender registration. The trooper asked Mr. Puckett about his phone, including if he had “any images, apps, anything you’re not supposed to have?” And, over the course of roughly three minutes, he requested consent to search the phone five different times. The final time, the trooper said he wanted to look through Mr. Puckett’s phone, “if you don’t mind,” to which Mr. Puckett replied, “I don’t mind.” While looking through the phone—and continuing to ask Mr. Puckett questions—the trooper identified what he believed to be child pornography, and he arrested Mr. Puckett, nineteen minutes after the stop had begun. The magistrate judge recommended denying Mr. Puckett’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during the traffic stop (D. Ct. Doc. 31), and the district court denied the motion (D. Ct. Doc. 37). The court of appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, reasoning that “brief” questioning unrelated to the traffic stop “did not impermissibly prolong it.” Ex. A at 7. The Eighth Circuit denied rehearing en banc over dissent by Judge Grasz. Ex. B. Judge Grasz believed the panel opinion “conflict[s] with a majority of all the other circuits” on “a question of exceptional importance and “cannot be reconciled” with this Court’s decision in Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015). Ex. B at 1-2. The petition for certiorari will demonstrate that the Court’s review is warranted to resolve a conflict among the courts of appeals that have embraced “starkly divergent interpretations of Rodriguez.” United States v. Green, 897 F.3d 173, 180181 (3d Cir. 2018); Ex. B at 1-2 (Grasz, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). Courts of appeals and a state court of last resort have held that officers asking unrelated investigatory questions prolongs the traffic stop and thus violates the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., United States v. Clark, 902 F.3d 404, 410-411 (3d Cir. 2018) (“criminal history questioning” lasting 20 seconds and “not tied to the traffic stop’s mission” after computerized checks are complete violates Fourth Amendment; “there is no de minimis exception”); United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 884-885 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (questioning unrelated to the traffic stop that “extended the stop by approximately twenty-five seconds” is impermissible given that this Court “rejected the Eighth Circuit’s de minimis rule” tolerating “minor extensions”); State v. Karst, 170 Idaho 219, 223 (2022) (holding dr