TAG CHECK SHOWS FEMALE REGISTERED OWNER HAS SUSPENDED LICENSE BUT DRIVER IS A MALE – CONTINUE TO DETAIN OR IMMEDIATELY RELEASE?

On July 28, 2025, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decided United States v. Behrens[i], in which a deputy stopped a car because a tag check revealed that the female registered owner of the vehicle had a suspended driver’s license, but as the deputy approached the car, he observed that a male was driving.  The court of appeals examined whether the deputy violated the Fourth Amendment when he continued to detain the driver and passenger after noticing the driver was not the female registered owner.  The facts, taken directly from the case, are as follows:

In May 2023, Sergeant Dominic Wheeler of the Muscatine County Sheriff’s Office observed a truck traveling ten miles per hour below the speed limit. Wheeler thought the reduced speed could indicate that the driver was impaired, so he followed the truck. During the three miles that Wheeler followed the truck, its speed fluctuated, which Wheeler viewed as another sign of driver impairment. Wheeler then checked the truck’s registration and learned the registered owner was a woman who did not have a valid license. At this point, Wheeler could not tell who was driving the truck. Wheeler activated his lights, but the truck did not immediately pull over even though the highway had a shoulder and “there were no conditions that would have prevented the driver from immediately stopping.” After Wheeler activated his sirens, the truck pulled into a gas station and parked at an angle near the station’s entrance. Wheeler testified that the manner in which the truck parked further increased his suspicion that the driver was impaired or trying to conceal contraband.

Wheeler exited his police vehicle to approach the driver and realized the driver was a male, not the female registered owner. Wheeler asked the driver if he was alright after Wheeler “immediately noticed the driver was nervous, sweaty, had a ‘blank stare,’ and was slow to react when speaking with him.” Wheeler asked additional questions to determine whether the driver was impaired and requested the driver’s license, registration, and insurance. The driver could not provide any of those documents, and Behrens, the truck’s passenger, also did not have his license. Wheeler learned the driver and Behrens were traveling from Burlington, Iowa, to Buffalo, Iowa, a known drug trafficking route. Wheeler then returned to his squad car to verify the driver’s and Behrens’s identities and to call for a canine unit. Wheeler initially struggled to pull up the driver’s and Behrens’s records but eventually learned neither had a valid license. Fifteen minutes into the stop, the canine unit arrived. Wheeler told the canine officer that “the driver was lethargic, had bloodshot eyes, and was acting weird.” The canine alerted on the truck, and Wheeler found a pipe with suspected methamphetamine residue inside. Behrens admitted the pipe belonged to him, and another officer on the scene located a sock filled with methamphetamine in front of the truck. Both the driver and Behrens were then arrested.[ii]

Behrens filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop and argued that after seeing the driver was male, and not the female registered owner who had a suspended license, the reasonable suspicion for the stop dissipated and he and the driver should have been released.  The district court denied the motion to suppress and Behrens appealed the denial to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On appeal, the court first noted the legal principles relevant to whether the deputy was required, under the Fourth Amendment, to immediately release Behrens and the driver upon seeing that the driver was not the female registered owner.  The court stated

The “tolerable duration” of a traffic stop “is determined by the seizure’s ‘mission’-to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop and attend to related safety concerns.” Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354 (2015) (internal citation omitted) (quoting Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005)). An officer’s authority for the traffic stop “ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are-or reasonably should have been-completed.” Id. As a result, “[o]nce ‘the purpose of the traffic stop is complete[,] further detention of the driver or vehicle would be unreasonable, unless something that occurred during the traffic stop generated the necessary reasonable suspicion to justify further detention.'” Williams, 929 F.3d at 544 (second alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Quintero-Felix, 714 F.3d 563, 567 (8th Cir. 2013)).[iii]

Second, the court of appeals examined whether the officer had a legal basis to initially stop the vehicle.  The court stated

Since the truck’s registered owner did not have a valid license and Wheeler could not tell that the driver was not the registered owner, Wheeler had reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation was occurring and could stop the vehicle. See Kansas v. Glover, 140 S. Ct. 1183, 1188, 1191 (2020).[iv]

The court also stated that, after the deputy saw that a male was driving the vehicle, the reasonable suspicion that the vehicle was being operated by an unlicensed driver dissipated.  However, the court of appeals further stated that

While we do not resolve the issue of continued detention after reasonable suspicion dissipated, courts that have held that a stop must terminate immediately without further questions still permit an officer to “explain[] to [the vehicle’s occupants] the reason for the initial stop,” rather than requiring the officer to return to his patrol car and drive off without explanation. See United States v. Trestyn, 646 F.3d 732, 744 (10th Cir. 2011).[v]

The Eighth Circuit did not resolve whether they would allow the deputy to detain the driver and passenger just long enough to explain the reason for the stop because they determined there was another lawful basis to continue to detain the driver and Behrens.  Specifically, the court of appeals determined the deputy had reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver may be driving while impaired on drugs.

The court explained that the deputy observed the driver driving at varied speeds, at times, ten-miles-per-hour slower than the posted speed limit. Additionally, the driver took longer than necessary to stop, and when he stopped, he stopped at an angle near the entrance of a gas station.  The deputy stated that these driving manifestations increased his suspicion that the driver may be impaired.  Then, when the deputy approached the driver, he observed the driver was nervous, sweaty, and had bloodshot eyes and a blank stare.  The deputy did not smell alcohol and thus believed the driver may be impaired by drugs.  The driver was also slow to respond when speaking to the deputy.  The court of appeals held

The totality of these circumstances provided Wheeler with reasonable suspicion that the driver was impaired by drug use. See United States v. Campbell-Martin, 17 F.4th 807, 814-15 (8th Cir. 2021) (concluding similar facts supported reasonable suspicion of driving under the influence). As a result, Wheeler could continue to detain the truck, investigate whether the driver was impaired, and request licenses, registration, and proof of insurance. See id.; Williams, 929 F.3d at 545.[vi]

Thus, since the deputy had reasonable suspicion to continue to detain the driver to investigate if he was impaired, he could also conduct license checks, registration checks, and check proof of insurance. Therefore, the court of appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress.

Noteworthy Precedent Cited by the Eighth Circuit:

It is important to note that, in United States v. Trestyn, 646 F.3d 732, 744 (10th Cir. 2011), cited by the court above, the Tenth Circuit held that after a Wyoming Trooper stopped a car with a California tag for improperly displaying the tag, he should have recognized, upon walking up to the car, that there was in fact a proper registration number on the license plate. The Tenth Circuit held that, at that point, the trooper’s reasonable suspicion dissipated, and he exceeded the scope of the justification for the stop by conducting further inquiries.  In Trestyn, the court held

Once Trooper Nykun observed or reasonably could have observed the registration number, … he should have explained to Trestyn and Herren the reason for the initial stop and then allowed them to continue on their way. The continued detention of Trestyn and Herren violated the Fourth Amendment…[vii]

Thus, according to the Tenth Circuit, when the reasonable suspicion that justified a stop dissipates, if there is no additional reasonable suspicion to continue the detention, the officer may tell the person why they were stopped and then must immediately release the person without further inquiries.

Note:  Court holdings can vary significantly between jurisdictions.  As such, it is advisable to seek the advice of a local prosecutor or legal adviser regarding questions on specific cases.  This article is not intended to constitute legal advice on a specific case.

____________________________________________________

[i] No. 24-2543 (8th Cir. July 28, 2025)

[ii] Id. at 1-3

[iii] Id. at 4-5 (emphasis added)

[iv] Id. at 5 (emphasis added)

[v] Id. at 5-6 (emphasis added)

[vi] Id. at 6 (emphasis added)

[vii] United States v. Trestyn, 646 F.3d 732, 744 (10th Cir. 2011) (emphasis added)