Commonwealth v. Romanelli (2026): PA Superior Court Rules that Police May Add 22 Seconds to Traffic Stop to Ask About Marijuana Use

Our firm has represented countless drivers who were pulled over for a minor traffic violation, only to have the stop turn into a DUI investigation within seconds. In Commonwealth v. Romanelli, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a trial court's decision to suppress evidence, holding that a trooper's question about marijuana use — asked 22 seconds after ordering the driver out of his car — was still part of a lawful traffic stop, not a new detention requiring its own reasonable suspicion.

Com v. Romanelli: The Facts

On June 26, 2024, a Pennsylvania State Trooper was patrolling Route 15 in Adams County when he began following a Ford Edge that was traveling in the left lane of the highway for roughly four miles, even though the right lane was open. Believing this violated the Vehicle Code's requirement that drivers use the right-hand lane when it's available, the trooper initiated a traffic stop.

Approaching the vehicle, the trooper identified Jason Romanelli as the driver and saw three passengers inside. He noticed Romanelli's eyes were bloodshot and glassy. Citing officer safety — and the presence of the other occupants — the trooper asked Romanelli to step out of the car so he could speak with him separately. Within 22 seconds of that request, while a second trooper was still running Romanelli's license, registration, and insurance through police databases, the trooper asked Romanelli whether he had smoked marijuana that morning.

Romanelli admitted that he smoked a bowl around 7:30AM, and told the trooper he had a Maryland medical marijuana card. Notably, the trooper testified on cross-examination that he never actually smelled marijuana on Romanelli or in the vehicle. Before Romanelli got out of the car, bloodshot and glassy eyes were the only sign of possible impairment the trooper had observed. Based on the eye observation and Romanelli's admission, the trooper arrested him for suspected DUI.

Romanelli was charged with DUI and the underlying lane violation. He moved to suppress everything that happened after he exited the vehicle, arguing that once the trooper pivoted from the traffic stop to questioning him about marijuana, a brand-new investigative detention began — one that required its own reasonable suspicion of DUI, which the trooper didn't yet have. The trial court agreed and suppressed the evidence. The Commonwealth appealed.

Com v. Romanelli: The Law

Pennsylvania recognizes three levels of police-citizen interaction: a mere encounter (no suspicion needed), an investigative detention (requiring reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot), and a custodial detention (the functional equivalent of arrest, requiring probable cause). For a traffic stop specifically, everything turns on the stop's "mission" — the traffic violation itself and any related safety concerns. A stop becomes unconstitutional the moment it runs longer than necessary to complete that mission. Critically, the Superior Court emphasized that the real question isn't when a question is asked relative to the citation being written — it's whether the question adds time to the stop.

During a lawful stop, officers may make routine inquiries tied to that mission — checking license, registration, insurance, and warrants — and may order occupants out of the vehicle for safety. But once the traffic mission is complete, that authority ends, and further questioning can create a new detention requiring independent justification.

To sort out where the marijuana question fell, the Superior Court adopted a four-part framework from a recent Third Circuit decision, dividing roadside questions into:

1. Small talk: social conversation with no constitutional significance;

2. Infraction-related inquiries: questions tied directly to the violation itself, such as license, registration, travel plans or other ordinary inquiries related to the traffic stop

3. Safety-related inquiries: questions connected to officer or roadway safety, such as questions about passengers or weapons; and

4. Off-mission inquiries: questions unrelated to the stop or officer safety, aimed at investigating other crimes, which generally require independent justification unless they don't meaningfully extend the stop.

Applying this framework, the Superior Court held that the marijuana question qualified as safety-related. or at minimum, a permissible off-mission question that ran concurrently with the ongoing traffic stop. Two facts drove the outcome:

Timing: The trooper asked about marijuana while his partner was still actively running the routine license and registration checks. Because that "mission" work was ongoing, the marijuana question didn't add any time to the stop.
Safety Framing: The trooper testified that Romanelli appeared "high," and the court accepted that a question about possible impairment can be legitimately tied to officer safety, especially with three additional occupants in the vehicle.

Because the question didn't prolong the stop, the court held it did not create a separate detention requiring its own reasonable suspicion. The court went a step further and held that even if a new detention had been created, the trooper had enough — bloodshot, glassy eyes, the admission of marijuana use roughly 90 minutes before driving, and Romanelli's overall appearance — to establish reasonable suspicion for field sobriety testing under the totality of the circumstances.

The Superior Court distinguished a prior case Romanelli relied on, Commonwealth v. Lomax, where an officer removed a passenger for field sobriety testing and repeatedly questioned him about marijuana without ever articulating a safety rationale, in a manner that extended the stop. Here, by contrast, the trooper gave a safety reason for the removal and the marijuana questioning at the same time as the ongoing document checks.

Com v. Romanelli: Why This Case Matters

This decision narrows the window defense attorneys have to challenge roadside questioning in DUI cases. Three things stand out:

Seconds Matter: The outcome turned on the fact that a second trooper was still processing Romanelli's paperwork when the marijuana question was asked. Suppression motions built around an "off-mission questioning" theory now need a precise, second-by-second account of what each officer was doing and when. Dash-cam and body-cam timestamps can help paint that picture.
Officer Safety: The court broadly accepted a safety rationale for both the order to exit the vehicle and the marijuana question based on little more than the presence of passengers and the driver's appearance.
Four-Category Framework to Analyze Roadside Questions: The courts will carefully examine whether or not questions are considered small talk, infraction related, safety related or off-mission in analyzing the legality of police conduct.

Com v. Romanelli: The Takeaway for Pennsylvania Drivers

If you've been asked an unexpected question during a traffic stop about drugs, alcohol or something unrelated to the reason you were pulled over, don’t assume that the question was improper b/c it seemed off-topic. Off-topic questions can be lawful if asked while paperwork is being processed, or if it’s deemed tied to officer safety. At the same time, this is exactly the kind of fact-intensive issue where a skilled DUI defense attorney can make a real difference: the precise timing of the stop, what each officer was doing at each moment, and whether the government's safety rationale actually holds up are all things that require careful review of the dash-cam and body-cam footage — not assumptions.

At the Zuckerman Law Firm, we defend drivers charged with DUI and other criminal offenses throughout Western Pennsylvania. If your case started with a traffic stop that turned into something more, it's worth having the footage and the timeline reviewed by an experienced attorney before you assume nothing can be done.

For a free consultation, call 412-447-5580.