This information provided law enforcement with probable cause to stop the vehicle. See United States v. Melendez, 505 Fed.Appx. 233, 235 (4th Cir. 2013) (police had probable cause for a traffic stop when defendant was travelling 76 miles per hour in a 65 miles per hour zone and made an unsafe lane change); United States v. Pankey, No. 3:16cr79, 2016 WL 6647939, at *3 (E.D. Va. Nov. 9, 2016) (stop of vehicle justified by vehicle's speed of 78 miles per hour in a 70 miles per hour zone). The fact that the officers were also interested in searching the vehicle for suspected drugs did not invalidate this authority.
This information provided law enforcement with probable cause to stop the vehicle. See United States v. Melendez, 505 Fed.Appx. 233, 235 (4th Cir. 2013) (police had probable cause for a traffic stop when defendant was travelling 76 miles per hour in a 65 miles per hour zone and made an unsafe lane change); United States v. Pankey, No. 3:16cr79, 2016 WL 6647939, at *3 (E.D. Va. Nov. 9, 2016) (stop of vehicle justified by vehicle's speed of 78 miles per hour in a 70 miles per hour zone). The fact that the officers were also interested in searching the vehicle for suspected drugs did not invalidate this authority.
Burt averred that he stopped the car because he observed it violating the traffic laws; this is constitutional under Whren. See, e.g., United States v. Melendez, 505 F. App'x 233, 235 (4th Cir. 2013) cert, denied, 133 S. Ct. 2875, 186 L. Ed. 2d 924 (2013) (police stop of car that was speeding and had cut off another car during a lane change did not violate the Fourth Amendment). Also, use of a "narcotics-detection dog" to sniff the exterior of a car "during a lawful traffic stop" does not implicate the Fourth Amendment.