Originally Posted by
cyccommute
They give no time. Only the provision that the stop "...permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further". The "additional steps" allows lots of wiggle room. And while you might be in the right, that means nothing at the time that you are detained. It might mean something later but at the time of the incident, you'll still be sitting the back of the car or at a station somewhere while someone "sorts things out".
The Hiibell case relies heavily on Terry stop case law and cites the Terry case.
Hiibel opinion directly states: “To ensure that the resulting seizure is constitutionally reasonable,
a Terry stop must be limited. The officer's action must be " 'justified at its inception, and ... reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.' " United States v. Sharpe, 470 U. S. 675, 682 (1985) (quoting Terry, supra, at 20). For example,
the seizure cannot continue for an excessive period of time, see United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696, 709 (1983), or resemble a traditional arrest, see Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 212 (1979).”
The Place case cited by Hiibell, directly indicates that 90 minutes is too long to detain a person or property which in effects causes a persons detention:
UNITED STATES v. PLACE, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) 462 U.S. 696
“Although
the 90-minute detention of respondent's luggage is sufficient to render the seizure unreasonable, the violation was exacerbated by the failure of the agents to accurately inform respondent of the place to which they were transporting his luggage, of the length of time he might be dispossessed, and of what arrangements would be made for return of the luggage if the investigation dispelled the suspicion. In short, we hold that the detention of respondent's luggage in this case went beyond the narrow authority possessed by police to detain briefly luggage reasonably suspected to contain narcotics.
IV
We conclude that, under all of the circumstances of this case,
the seizure of respondent's luggage was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Consequently, the evidence obtained from the subsequent search of his luggage was inadmissible, and Place's conviction must be reversed.”
Other Terry Stop case law (which I have not had time to relocate, but will work on after Thankgiving) did further limit the stated time considered reasonable for a Terry Stop. The one I saw was around 45 minutes and there may even be other cases which reduce the “reasonable time standard” to even less time (I seem to remember one that exceeded 20 minutes and the conviction was thrown out because the stop was too long). Illinois has gone as far as a 15 minute limit for traffic style stops. The primary guideline seems to be minutes and not hours.
Citations in the Hiibel case and their subsequent citations impacting Terry Stops are part of the Hiibel case, so even though the supreme court may choose to not lay down an exact time, other Terry stop cases provide effective limits.
Cops playing with with Terry Stop rules are just asking for a civil suit.