What is the current state of the law on seizure by police officers during a traffic stop?

A seizure for a traffic violation justifies a police investigation of that violation. (Rodriguez v. United States (2015) U.S. , 135 S.Ct. 1609, 1614, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (Rodriguez ).) However, [a] seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission. (Illinois v. Caballes (2005) 543 U.S. 405, 407, 125 S.Ct. 834, 160 L.Ed.2d 842.) [T]he tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure's missionto address the traffic violation that warranted the stop, [citation] and attend to related safety concerns, [citation]. [Citations.] Because addressing the infraction is the purpose of the stop, it may last no longer than is necessary to effectuate th[at] purpose. [Citations.] Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction areor reasonably should have beencompleted. (Rodriguez, at p. 1614.) These tasks include those incidental to traffic enforcement, such as validating a license and registration, searching for outstanding warrants, and checking for proof of insurance. (Id. at p. 1615.)

If the police develop reasonable suspicion of some other criminal activity during a traffic stop of lawful duration, they may expand the scope of the detention to investigate that activity. (See Illinois v. Caballes, supra, 543 U.S. at pp. 407408, 125 S.Ct. 834 ; United States v. Gomez Serena (8th Cir.2004) 368 F.3d 1037, 1041 [an investigative stop can grow out of a traffic stop if the officer has

[247 Cal.App.4th 757]