The question of whether an official can order a motorist to stay in the police vehicle during these measures remains open in North Carolina. The courts that have considered this issue are viewing it through the prism of further seizure. Many cases, both public and federal, have implicitly recognized that officials have the authority to order a motorist to board the police vehicle while the ticketing process is complete. See Barahona, 990 F.2d to 414 (in which the official asked the accused to get out of the car and accompany him to the patrol car). Several federal courts have found that a public servant needs an appropriate justification, normally of a specific and articulated safety concern before the public servant can order a motorist to sit in the patrol vehicle, see United States vs. Cannon, 29 F.3d 472, 476-77 (9th Cir.1994), U.P. Ricardo D., 912 F.2d 337, 340-41 (9th Cir.1990), while other courts have found that if a public servant`s claim is only part of the p Ticketing rocedure, leaving the motorist in the police vehicle is within the authorized framework of a terry stop. See U.S. v. Rodriguez, 831 F.2d 162, 166 (7th Cir.1987), U.S.
v. Rivera, 906 F.2d 319, 322-23 (7th Cir.1990), U.S. v. Bloomfield, 40 F.3d 910, 915 (8th Cir.1994) (reasonable investigation implies that the driver is seated in the patrol car), Ohio v. Lozada, 748 N.E.2d 520, 523 (Ohio Ct.App.2001). Even the courts, which believe that the official needs a justification to order a motorist to accompany him to the patrol vehicle, recognize certain exceptions. Here, Agent McDonough was confronted by an unauthorized user of a rental vehicle. At that time, he told the accused to go to the police vehicle, as I said before, he did not know if checking the database could reveal a reported theft.
Even checking the accused`s story that he had borrowed the car from a relative who was the tenant could be facilitated by the presence of the accused. The CJLEADS watchlist feature allows users to draw the attention of others to the fact that they are observing an author. This feature helped officials alert other public servants and track potential gang activity across the country through the use of CJLEADS. It should also be noted that the accused interviewed by Officer McDonough is part of a traffic stop on his travel plans, usually referred to as «back and forth» questions, as the questions and answers that are given can impact driver fatigue and other traffic-related issues. See U.S. v. Barahona, 990 F.2d 412, 416 (8 cir.1993); Ohio v. Carlson, 657 N.E.2d 591, 599 (Ohio Ct.App.1995). In the case of the bar, the official was also confronted with an unauthorized operator of a rental vehicle.
The use of rental vehicles by unauthorized users was one of the main indicators of illegal activities that the official highlighted during his enforcement hearing. According to his findings, Constable McDonough may have a person who has violated several vehicle laws, N.C Gen.Stat. § 14-72.2 (unauthorized use of motor vehicles) or N.C. Gen.Stat. § 20-106 (possession of a stolen vehicle). In other words, the official is not required to pay tribute to the motorist`s version of how he came into possession of the vehicle, but is entitled to conduct a brief investigation into the circumstances. See United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.p. 675, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985).
According to the majority opinion, before leaving the defendant`s vehicle, the official was aware that the car was on I-85, but as a local and licensed vehicle, this factor is not significant; The accused had two mobile phones; was not the authorized user of the rental car; The accused told the officer that he would go to Century Oaks Drive, which was several exits before the one where he was arrested; When the accused stopped, he accelerated into the far left lane and therefore did not seem to be looking for an exit. . . .