In order to initiate a traffic
stop, a police officer either has to have
"reasonable suspicion" that either an illegal act
has been committed or that a traffic law has been
broken. This is an important distinction from
that of probable cause. Reasonable suspicion
can be based on information from other drivers
communicated through dispatch, or other information
that does not include an officer actually witnessing
the traffic violation. Most recently, the Utah
Supreme Court stated that reasonable suspicion is, reasonable
suspicion requires a
particularized and objective basis, supported by
specific and articulable facts.
Courts should evaluate these facts in their
totality, rather than looking at each fact in
isolation.
Although the standard requires more than an inchoate and unparticularized
... hunch, it does
not require an officer to rule out innocent conduct
or establish the likelihood of criminal conduct to
the same degree as required for probable cause.
In other words, an officer can initiate a traffic
stop if he/she has a particular theory of what has
happened and the theory is based on specific fact.
Nevertheless, the detention following a routine
traffic stop is
generally limited to examining the driver's license
and vehicle registration, conducting a computer
check, and issuing a citation. See, e.g.,
State v. Robinson,
797 P.2d 431, 435 (Utah Ct.App.1990).
Unsupported by further
probable cause or
reasonable suspicion, inquiries by the officer to
investigate suspicions unrelated to the traffic
offense unconstitutionally extend the detention
beyond the scope of the circumstances that rendered
it permissible
