the liberty to say no to the police. Otherwise, the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures will mean only what police officers like Ramsey want. That is not liberty; it is the essence of a police state. JOHN F. STROUD, Jr., Chief Judge, dissenting. I agree with J the majority that the police officer had probable cause to stop the van in order to ascertain the validity of its registration, and that, consequently, the initial stop was valid. I do not agree, however, that the officer’s continued detention of the vehicle and its occupants exceeded the valid reason for the initial stop, thereby making the subsequent search unconstitutional. I therefore respectfully dissent and would affirm the convictions s v. White, 42 F.3d 457, 459 (8th Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Ramos, 42 F.3d 1160, 1163
holding that a reasonable investigation of a traffic stop typically includes asking for a license and registration asking the driver to sit in the patrol car and asking about destination and purpose of travel holding warrant check lawful if detention not extended beyond time necessary to request license and registration and issue citation holding that request for license destination and purpose of trip within reasonable scope of detention holding that requests for identification of all occupants explanation of presence in area and warrant check was within reasonable scope of detention holding that request for information concerning a drivers license ownership of a vehicle insurance information appellants destination and the purpose of a trip are all proper inquiries after a traffic violation stop