Last week, in Rodriguez v. United States, the Supreme Court clarified that police officers may not prolong a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff on a vehicle, unless there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the occupants are engaged in criminal activity.
In this case, the defendant was pulled over in Nebraska for illegally driving on the shoulder of the highway. About 20 minutes later, the police officer issued a warning ticket for the traffic infraction. However, the defendant was not yet “free to leave.” The police officer instructed the defendant to exit his vehicle and stand in front of the patrol car while they waited for another police unit to arrive. About seven more minutes elapsed before the arrival of the backup unit. At this point, the officer led a drug-detecting dog around the defendant’s vehicle. The dog alerted to the presence of drugs, and a subsequent search of the defendant’s vehicle revealed a large quantity of methamphetamine. The defendant was convicted and sentenced to five years in federal prison.
On appeal, the Government argued that waiting a mere seven minutes for the drug dog to sniff the outside of defendant’s vehicle constituted a de minimus (minimal) intrusion on the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights, meaning that the intrusion was so minor that it was constitutionally permissible. Fortunately, our Supreme Court rejected this argument. The Court noted that certain intrusions, such as asking a person to step outside the vehicle during a lawful traffic stop, are “negligibly burdensome precautions” that allow an officer to complete the traffic stop “mission” safely. “On-scene investigation into other crimes, however, detours from that mission,” wrote Justice Ginsburg, who authored the majority opinion.
An officer may not prolong a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff unless facts are developed during the traffic stop that support reasonable suspicion of drug activity. For example, if an officer smells drugs during the stop or notes a contradiction between the driver’s and passenger’s statements regarding their travel itinerary, the officer might have reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop in order to investigate drug activity. However, an officer can’t conduct a dog sniff on a car based on a mere hunch that’s not supported by actual observations of suspicious activity.
Even if the officer had conducted the dog sniff prior to issuing the warning ticket, the result would be the same: “The critical question, then, is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, but whether conducting the sniff ‘prolongs’ – i.e., adds time to – ‘the stop.’”
This recent case enhances Chris Perri Law’s arsenal for attacking unlawful searches at suppression hearings. We’ve begun 2015 with three victories on suppression issues, and we’ll continue to fight to protect our clients’ constitutional rights.