“the individual’s right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.” Id.; see also United States v. Oliver, 363 F.3d 1061 (10th Cir. 2004). Further, in Holt, the court cautioned that in every case the reasonableness of a traffic stop “must be judged by examining both the length of the detention and the manner in which it is carried out.” Id. at 1230. {28} The plurality in Holt gave two reasons why inquiries into a motorist’s travel plans were usually reasonably related to the initial justification for the traffic stop. First, it noted that questions about a motorist’s travel plans are generally permissible bec to determine what questions are permissible during a traffic stop is also used by the Ninth and Eighth Circuits. See, e.g., Murillo, 255 F.3d at 1174 (<HOLDING>); Ramos, 42 F.3d at 1163 (noting that a police
holding that a section 1983 suit against an officer in his or her official capacity is simply another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent holding that once the defendant has submitted to the control of the officer and the process of taking him or her to the police station  has commenced his or her arrest is complete and he or she is in custody for the purposes of the escape statute holding that in deciding whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity it is not only the evidence of clearly established law that is for the court but also whether a reasonable officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful in light of the information the officer had holding that an officer must articulate suspicious factors that are particularized and objective in order to expand questioning beyond his or her justification for the initiation of contact holding that when a defendant initiates contact with the police after an assertion of a sixth amendment right to counsel defendant waives that right and his or her statements are admissible