Cited by

VICE CHIEF JUSTICE LOPEZ, Opinion of the Court: ¶1 We consider two issues arising from a search and seizure of evidence and subsequent litigation to suppress it: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of narcotics discovered during a traffic stop; and (2) correctly states the appellate standard of review for video evidence.

¶ 19 (App. 2010) (An officer may inquire into matters unrelated to the grounds for the stop if the inquiries do not measurably extend the stop’s duration.

¶24 Lastly, to argue the Trooper lacked reasonable suspicion.

Because a traffic stop is a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, an officer must have “reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation has occurred to initiate a stop.” see also Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 326 (2009).

¶10 ¶ 12 (App. 2010), Sandoval asks us to conduct our own "independent review" of the body cam footage because the court made clearly erroneous factual determinations.

¶10 for the proposition that her continued detention after a completed traffic stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion.

¶26 Moreover, to argue the Trooper lacked reasonable suspicion.

¶ 12 (App. 2010) (explaining appellate court may independently review video evidence).

¶ 5 (App. 2010) (noting preparing and completing warning ticket “consumed eight minutes”).

¶17 A traffic stop cannot last “longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop.” ¶ 17 (App. 2010) (citation omitted).

“[W]e review de novo mixed questions of fact and law, including whether the totality of the circumstances gave rise to reasonable suspicion to support an investigative detention.” ¶ 12 (App. 2010).

¶ 12 (App. 2010) (citing cases).

¶ 17 (App. 2010) (recognizing that an officer may prolong a traffic 4 STATE v. LINCOURT Decision of the Court search if the encounter becomes consensual).

–12, ¶¶ 16–17 (App. 2010).

State v. Sweeney , , ¶ 12

¶ 12 (App. 2010) (citing cases).

Prejudice occurs when: (1) evidence admitted against one defendant is facially incriminating to the other defendant, (2) evidence admitted against one defendant has a harmful rub-off effect on the 2 We previously examined a in which we arrived at a different conclusion.