## Facts

- Around 2:44 a.m., a police officer observed a rental car leaving a dead-end area of closed commercial properties and stopped it after the driver failed to fully stop at a stop sign.
- The officer approached and saw the driver, Courtney C. Brown, was not wearing a seatbelt.
- Brown said he was going “nowhere really,” stated he was from Milwaukee, and said he was visiting a friend in Fond du Lac.
- While preparing a citation, the officer ran a records check and learned Brown had prior arrests for drug offenses and armed robbery.
- After completing the citation, the officer asked Brown to exit the vehicle, asked whether Brown had anything “concerning” on his person (including weapons), and requested consent to search.
- Brown consented, and the officer found cocaine on Brown’s person.
- Brown was charged and convicted of possession with intent to deliver cocaine as a repeat offender; his suppression motion argued the search resulted from an unlawfully prolonged stop.

## Issues

1. Whether, absent independent reasonable suspicion, an officer unlawfully extends a traffic stop by ordering the driver out of the vehicle, asking about weapons or other “concerning” items, and requesting consent to search after completing a traffic citation.
2. Whether consent to search is invalid as the product of an unconstitutional extension of the traffic stop.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the denial of suppression and affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the officer did not impermissibly extend the traffic stop by asking Brown to exit the vehicle, inquiring about weapons or other concerning items, and requesting consent to search.
- The court concluded these steps were negligibly burdensome and related to officer safety, which is part of the traffic stop’s mission; therefore, no additional reasonable suspicion was required.
- Because there was no unlawful detention, Brown’s consent was not tainted, and the cocaine was admissible.

## Legal Principles

- A traffic stop may last no longer than reasonably necessary to complete the stop’s mission, including attending to related safety concerns.
- Measures that are negligibly burdensome and tied to officer safety may be within the traffic stop’s mission and may be undertaken without separate reasonable suspicion.
- When police conduct remains within the lawful scope of the stop, a driver’s consent to search is not invalidated on the theory that it followed an unconstitutional prolongation.

## Conclusion

The court held that, during a lawful traffic stop, an officer may order a driver out of the vehicle, ask about weapons or other concerning items, and request consent to search as officer-safety measures that do not unlawfully prolong the stop, making evidence found in a consensual search admissible.


State v. Brown, 945 N.W.2d 584 (Wis. 2020)