Officer Safety Exception Permits Limited Contraband Inquiry During Ongoing Traffic Stops

Introduction

United States v. Floyd Green, Jr. presents a Fourth Amendment challenge to a routine traffic stop that resulted in evidence of drug distribution. In February 2025, the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether an officer’s brief questions about weapons and narcotics—asked after issuing a warning citation—impermissibly prolonged the stop. Defendant‐appellant Floyd Green, Jr., convicted under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) for possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine, contended that officers extended his detention without reasonable suspicion. The Government, conversely, argued that these safety‐related questions fell within the Mimms officer‐safety exception and did not amount to an unlawful prolongation under Rodriguez.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit, in a per curiam decision, affirmed the district court’s denial of Green’s motion to suppress. Although the court recognized a technical extension of the stop—approximately eight seconds beyond issuance of the citation—it held that the officer’s questions about weapons and a limited reference to narcotics were justified by legitimate safety concerns. Distinguishing this case from Rodriguez v. United States and United States v. Campbell, the panel found no evidence of a “fishing expedition” into unrelated criminal activity. Because the stop’s mission had not yet concluded and the added time was minimal and safety‐related, the questions did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Whren v. United States (517 U.S. 806, 1996): Establishes that a traffic stop is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
Heien v. North Carolina (574 U.S. 54, 2014): Confirms that an officer need only reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle for a traffic violation.
Rodriguez v. United States (575 U.S. 348, 2015): Holds that an officer may not extend a traffic stop beyond its mission to investigate unrelated crimes absent reasonable suspicion.
Pennsylvania v. Mimms (434 U.S. 106, 1977): Permits officers to take minimal additional steps for safety, such as ordering a driver out of a vehicle.
United States v. Campbell (26 F.4th 860, en banc 2022): Articulates a three-part test for identifying an unlawful prolongation: (1) an unrelated inquiry, (2) that adds time, (3) without reasonable suspicion.
United States v. Boyce (351 F.3d 1102, 11th Cir. 2003): Addresses contraband questioning during stops but did not invoke a safety justification.
United States v. Braddy (11 F.4th 1298, 2021): Defines the mixed‐question standard of review for suppression rulings.
United States v. Ramirez-Chilel (289 F.3d 744, 2002): Clarifies deference to district court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous.
United States v. Chitwood (676 F.3d 971, 2012): Permits affirmance on any ground supported by the record.
United States v. Perkins (348 F.3d 965, 2003): Explains the exclusionary rule for Fourth Amendment violations.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied the familiar two-step Fourth Amendment analysis: first assessing whether a seizure occurred, and second examining the scope and duration of the seizure. It accepted the district court’s factual findings that the stop was still active when Officer Ragusa asked about weapons and drugs, and that the extension lasted only eight seconds. Under Mimms, minimal safety questions—particularly about weapons—are reasonable without additional suspicion. The court contrasted this scenario with Rodriguez and Campbell, where officers pursued unrelated investigations into counterfeit goods and narcotics beyond the stop’s mission. Here the inquiries were narrowly tailored, safety driven, and occurred before the actual mission concluded, placing them squarely within the Mimms exception.

Impact

This decision clarifies the contours of the officer‐safety exception in the Eleventh Circuit. Law enforcement officers retain the authority to ask brief questions about weapons—and under certain circumstances even limited contraband questions—while a stop remains ongoing, provided the inquiries are genuinely safety‐motivated and add only de minimis time. Future litigants will need to distinguish these closed‐end, safety‐oriented queries from broader “fishing expedition” tactics. The ruling reinforces that the Fourth Amendment balances individual liberty against officer safety, and that minor extensions for safety purposes do not automatically trigger suppression.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Traffic Stop as Seizure: Any time an officer directs a driver to stop, the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures apply.
Reasonable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause: Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard that permits brief investigative stops; probable cause is required for arrests and most searches.
Stop’s Mission: The tasks needed to address the observed traffic violation—checking licenses, issuing citations, and ensuring roadway safety.
Officer Safety Exception: Under Mimms, officers may take minimal additional steps to ensure their own safety—such as asking about weapons—without independent reasonable suspicion.
Unlawful Prolongation: Any extension of the stop beyond what is necessary to complete the mission, especially to investigate unrelated crimes, is unconstitutional under Rodriguez.

Conclusion

United States v. Floyd Green, Jr. reaffirms that brief, safety‐related questions—focused on the presence of weapons and posed while a traffic stop remains active—are permissible under the Fourth Amendment even absent reasonable suspicion. By distinguishing this case from Rodriguez and Campbell, the Eleventh Circuit draws a clear line between de minimis, safety‐driven inquiries and broader, time‐consuming investigations into unrelated criminal activity. The decision strikes a balance between protecting officer safety and guarding individual privacy rights, providing a useful guidepost for both officers and courts in structuring permissible traffic‐stop practices.