ask to speak with them. When the detectives then asked to see Peterkin and Durovic’s identifications and to speak with them separately, this did not change the nature of the encounter. “Law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable seizures merely by approaching individuals on the street or in other public places and putting questions to them if they are willing to listen.” Id. at 200, 122 S.Ct. 2105. In addition, “[e]ven when law enforcement officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may pose questions, [and] ask for identification[,]’ without running afoul of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibitions.’ ” United States v. Smith, 575 F.3d 308, 312 (3d Cir.2009). Here, as in Smith, the detectives asked for identif Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Second, Peterkin claims that his opening the
holding that after receiving conflicting stories from a driver and passenger the officer had reasonable suspicion to expand the scope of the terry stop and conduct background checks on them both holding that a police officer may stop a driver where the officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion regarding the commission of a civil traffic violation holding that it was impermissible for an officer to question a driver about matters unrelated to the traffic stop after the officer had fulfilled the purpose of the stop by issuing a written warning to the driver holding that receiving conflicting stories from the driver and passenger of a stopped car about their travel gave the officer reasonable suspicion to extend the terry stop holding a driver had standing to suppress the drugs found in the underwear of the drivers passenger during an unreasonably prolonged roadside stop of both driver and passenger