Automobile stops and searches that result from these stops have been subject of extensive controversy. In a case decided in 2007, the Appellate Division provided an in depth analysis of the issue.

In the case subject the court's decision, four people were stopped in a motor vehicle because the vehicle did not have an inspection sticker and the windows were tinted. One defendant was the driver.  The other a front seat passenger.  The passenger’s young daughter and her mother were in the backseat. After the stop, it was established that the driver did not have a driver’s license or proof of registration.  The investigating officer then separated the driver and the passenger and began an interrogation of both at different times.  The officer sought to explore where defendants lived, where they were going, the owner of the vehicle and various other academic bits of information. The information he received from the two defendants was inconsistent. Moreover, at one point, the driver said that they had smoked marijuana/pot in the car earlier.  A search of the vehicle disclosed drugs/CDS in a false bottom of a can. The defendants were charged and the case proceeded to a motion to suppress evidence where defendants claimed that the stop and resulting search was illicit.  The motion was unsuccessful. The issue was taken to the appellate court.

The court started its analysis by noting that a detention resulting from a motor vehicle stop, even for a brief time, is a "seizure" contemplated by the Fourth Amendment. In order for the government to justify such a stop, the investigating police officer had to show, among other things, that there was probable cause to believe that a traffic offense occurred. Once the stop is justified, routine questions of the vehicle's occupants could be appropriate. The questioning, however, cannot be accusatory; nor, can it be designed to obtain incriminating information. Indeed, it must be "minimally intrusive".  Some of the facts that can be used to determine whether an investigatory detention or automobile stop becomes impermissibly custodial is the length of time of the investigation, whether the police officer's conduct was capable of developing fear or anxiety and whether the suspect was isolated.

In this case, the court determined that the inconsistent information provided by defendants, the driver’s lack of driver’s license, her admission relating to the use of marijuana/pot, and her nervousness was such as to allow for a reasonable extension of the investigatory detention. In addition, the court determined that the 26 minute stop was not an inordinate delay.  On this issue, the court looked to decisions in the federal courts, which upheld stops where the interrogation lasted 75, 60, 50 and 45. Finally, the court observed that the police officer decision to use drug sniffing dogs did not produce a coercive environment. Resultantly, the court rejected defendant’s appeal.