Cluster 1666875

To this list may be added, the factor of flight.” (quoting State v. Bell, 382 So. 2d 119, 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980))).

See Hunter v. State, 660 So.2d 244, 249 (Fla.1995); Hernandez v. State, 784 So.2d 1124, 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); State v. Bell, 382 So.2d 119, 119-20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Rodriguez v. State, 948 So.2d 912, 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

However, once the computer checks confirm that the driver has produced a valid license and proof of entitlement to operate the car, the driver must be permitted to proceed on his way, without further delay by police for additional questioning.') (internal citations omitted); United States v. McRae, 81 F.3d 1528 , 1535 n. 6 (10th Cir.1996) (noting that an officer conducting a routine traffic stop is authorized to conduct a computer check); State v. Holman, 221 Neb. 730, 732-3…

However, once the computer checks confirm that the driver has produced a valid license and proof of entitlement to operate the car, the driver must be *305 permitted to proceed on his way, without further delay by police for additional questioning.”) (internal citations omitted); United States v. McRae, 81 F.3d 1528 , 1535 n. 6 (10th Cir.1996) (noting that an officer conducting a routine traffic stop is authorized to conduct a computer check); State v. Holman, 221 Neb. 730, …

However, once the computer checks confirm that the driver has produced a valid license and proof of entitlement to operate the car, the driver must be permitted to proceed on his way, without further delay by police for additional questioning.”) (internal citations omitted); 19 United States v. McRae, 81 F.3d 1528 , 1535 n. 6 (10th Cir.1996) (noting that an officer conducting a routine traffic stop is authorized to conduct a computer check); State v. Holman, 221 Neb. 730, 73…

However, once the computer checks confirm that the driver has produced a valid license and proof of entitlement to operate the car, the driver must be permitted to proceed on his way, without further delay by police for additional questioning.") (internal citations omitted); [19] United States v. McRae, 81 F.3d 1528 , 1535 n. 6 (10th Cir.1996) (noting that an officer conducting a routine traffic *435 stop is authorized to conduct a computer check); State v. Holman, 221 Neb. …

J., 931 P.2d 1177, 1182 (Colo.1997) (since officers had reasonable suspicion that car was stolen, they had basis for stopping and questioning car's occupants and detaining them in order to check for outstanding arrest warrants; "[s]uch detention is brief and minimally intrusive"); State v. Bell, 382 So.2d 119, 120 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980) (during lawful Terry stop, police officers were authorized to ascertain if there was an outstanding warrant for defendant's arrest); Biggers…

Cf. United States v. Finke, 85 F.3d 1275, 1280 (7th Cir.1996) (concluding that although court is “reluctant” to hold that noncontemporaneous criminal background checks during routine traffic stops are always reasonable, additional developments during stop in this case supported prolonged detention for warrants check); People v. H.J., 931 P.2d 1177, 1182 (Colo.1997) (en banc) (insufficient proof of registration of vehicle provided reasonable suspicion that vehicle might be st…

United States v. Espinosa, 827 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir.1987); State v. Stinnett, 104 Nev. 398 , 760 P.2d 124, 127 (1988); Commonwealth v. Moore, 300 Pa.Super. 488 , 446 A.2d 960, 962 (1982); and State v. Bell, 382 So.2d 119, 120 (Fla.App.1980).