Officer Smart testified that he regularly asks individuals a question concerning possession of "firearms, drugs, cats, dogs, alligators, and weapons" at vehicle stops because it "helps [him] read people's body language and their demeanor." … He further testified that he was trained by other officers to infer that an individual who does not laugh at such a question is nervous about either firearms or narcotics … and that he typically receives a "laughing response" to that question ….

While courts "do give considerable deference to police officers' determinations of reasonable suspicion, … courts do not owe them blind deference." United States v. Alvin, 701 F. App'x 151, 156 (3d Cir. 2017) (internal quotations omitted). The Court does not find that laughing at a law enforcement officer while being questioned about drugs and weapons would be an appropriate response. Moreover, failing to laugh at a bizarre question while being questioned about drugs and weapons does not create reasonable suspicion to remove an individual from a car after a traffic violation.

A practice that was occasionally talked about in police canteens was the game of snooker, not table snooker but "traffic snooker". This was a game specifically played by lads in the traffic division, the dreaded speed cops whose main work consisted of dealing with traffic accidents but who also reported motorists for speeding offences. The game the officers played consisted of scoring points, as in table snooker, the numbers depending on the colours of the cars they had reported for speeding during their shift — for example, a red car scored 1 point, a yellow 2 points, and so on, with a black one scoring the maximum 7 points. At the end of a shift, the traffic cars on the division would return to the police garage and the crews totted up their points to find the winner. I never heard what the prize was.