|
VEHICLE SNIFFS:
Summary:
The biggest issue with vehicle sniffs is actually not a canine issue. The biggest issue is detention time. Most courts state that an officer may only detain the vehicle long enough to conduct the normal business of a traffic stop. Therefore, a canine sniff must occur within this time constraint. Most courts state you have approximately 20 minutes to conduct the normal business of a traffic stop.
An investigative stop and/or detention of a vehicle for an exterior canine sniff must be supported by reasonable suspicion or consent. Drug courier profile, without more, does not create reasonable suspicion. Failure to consent to search cannot form any part of basis for reasonable suspicion. If the officer develops reasonable suspicion that the vehicle or occupants are involved in contraband trafficking or use, the officer may now detain them for approximately one hour.
If the dog is on-scene, a brief delay of a matter of minutes to have the dog sniff the exterior of the vehicle, is reasonable.
If you tell a person that a canine unit or drug dog is being requested, the person is detained. Consent may not be requested.
A canine sniff of the exterior of a vehicle is not a search. The vehicle must be lawfully detained, such as a traffic stop, roadblock, etc.
If the vehicle is parked in a public place, random and suspicionless dog sniffs of the exterior is not a search.
Once the canine sniff produces a positive alert, this alert establishes probable cause.
Under the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement, all parts of the vehicle may be searched without a warrant.
The dog may be used for the interior search (after the positive canine alert on the exterior).
You may impound and tow the vehicle to a different location and continue the warrantless search of the vehicle there.
If, after a positive canine alert on the exterior of the vehicle, no contraband is located in the vehicle, you may conduct a “search incident to arrest” search of the occupants.
1) Detentions of vehicles while awaiting a K-9 sniff:
A) Ask for consent.
B) United States v Hardy (855 F. 2d 753 (1988) Eleventh Circuit
Discrepancies from the suspect(s) can be part of your reasonable suspicion. Do not confront the suspect(s) with their discrepancies. This allows them to change their story and once discrepancies are corrected, you may lose your reasonable suspicion.
C) United States v Dewitt (946 F. 2d 1497 (1991) Tenth Circuit
If consent is refused, you must have reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity to detain. The reasonable suspicion factors must establish the reasons for the detention. You must be able to articulate each observation that is a potential indicator of drug trafficking or use.
2) United States v Spetz (721 F. 2d 1457 (1983) Ninth Circuit
Detector dogs’ alert on a parked vehicle in a public place was reasonable suspicion of the presence of illegal drugs and was sufficient to justify a further dog sniff.
A dog sniff can supply probable cause necessary for issuing a search warrant only if sufficient reliability is established by application for the warrant.
Portion of search warrant affidavit stating that detector dog had alerted to a vehicle established probable cause to search the vehicle.
3) United States v Montoya de Hernandez (473 U. S. 531 (1985) U. S. Supreme Court
Consistent with Congress’ power to protect the nation by stopping and examining persons entering this country, the Fourth Amendment’s balance of reasonableness is qualitatively different at the international border than in the interior. Routine searches of persons and effects of entrants are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause or warrant.
Automotive travelers may be stopped at fixed checkpoints near the border without individualized suspicion, even if the stop is based largely on ethnicity, and boats on inland waters with ready access to the sea may be hailed and boarded with no suspicion whatsoever.
Expectation of privacy at an international border is less than in the interior.
4) United States v Dicesare (765 F. 2d 890 (1985) Ninth Circuit
Canine sniff of automobile trunk was not a search. Alerting to a suitcase in the trunk provided probable cause to search the defendant’s car and her apartment.
5) United States v Hamilton (792 F. 2d 837 (1986) Ninth Circuit
Agents’ search of a motor home parked in homeowner’s driveway fell within scope of vehicle exception to warrant requirement, where the motor home was moved the night before and had easy access to a public road, even when the motor home was connected to electrical utilities by means of an extension cord.
6) United States v Quinn (815 F. 2d 153 (1987) First Circuit
While officers were securing a house for a search warrant, suspects drove up to the house in a car. Officers developed reasonable suspicion that the defendants were about to commit or had committed a crime.
Based upon the reasonable suspicion, a canine sniff was done on the vehicle. The dog alerted to the trunk, which gave officers probable cause to search the vehicle.
7) United States v Rivera (825 F. 2d 152 (1987) Seventh Circuit
The automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment allows a warrantless search and seizure of a car as long as the search is justified by probable cause, even if the car is parked and stationary.
Law enforcement agent’s delays in the search of the car by removing it to a garage and sniff tested by narcotic detection dog and until another sniff test was conducted, were reasonable.
8) United States v Hardy (855 F. 2d 753 (1988) Eleventh Circuit
Trooper had reasonable suspicion justifying investigative stop of defendant’s automobile after he had given the driver warning for speeding.
Subjecting luggage in defendant’s automobile to a canine sniff did not exceed permissible scope of Terry stop. The sniff was an un-intrusive way in which to determine whether narcotics were in the luggage in the trunk.
Trooper acted with dispatch in obtaining trained dog and 50-minute delay did not invalidate the detention, particularly due to the trooper’s avoiding any questioning of the defendant’s during the waiting period.
9) United States v Stone (866 F. 2d 359 (1989) Tenth Circuit
Police use of a narcotics dog to sniff an automobile is not a search.
A warrantless search of narcotics suspect’s car was justified when a trained dog indicated existence of narcotics after jumping into car’s open hatchback and hatchback was not opened to permit dog to enter and dog was not encouraged to enter the car.
The defendant himself opened his vehicle and provided an opportunity for the dog to jump through the opening.
10) United States v De Soto (885 F. 2d 354 (1989) Seventh Circuit
Probable cause was established when a narcotics-sniffing dog reacted positively to presence of drugs in the rear of an automobile that arrived at defendant’s building.
11) United States v Dovali-Avila (895 F. 2d 206 (1990) Fifth Circuit
Mere alerting of a dog trained to alert on contraband or mere walking of the dog around a vehicle does not constitute a search.
Officers have probable cause to search a vehicle upon which a trained dog alerted to the presence of contraband in the bed of a truck.
12) United States v Dunkley (911 F. 2d 522 (1990) Eleventh Circuit
Drug sniffing dog’s alert to stuffed rabbit on back seat of car, gave state trooper probable cause to inspect rabbit for drugs.
13) United States v Maejia (928 F. 2d 810 (1991) Eighth Circuit
Otherwise valid traffic stop does not become unreasonable merely because officer believes the car is involved in transportation of drugs.
Once a trained police dog sniffed a vehicle for narcotics and gave a positive canine alert, that established probable cause to search the vehicle.
14) United States v Fiala (929 F. 2d 285 (1991) Seventh Circuit
One and one-half hour roadside detention of driver while troopers awaited arrival of drug sniffing dog was reasonable, where driver would have been detained anyway in county jail as a result of his arrest for driving without a valid license.
15) United States v Rodriguez-Morales (929 F. 2d 780 (1991) First Circuit
Canine sniff of the exterior of a vehicle, which is legitimately within the custody of police, is not a search.
Once the vehicle had legitimately been impounded pursuant to officers’ community care taking function, sniffing of the exterior of the vehicle by a drug detection dog was not a search.
16) United States v Taylor (934 F. 2d 218 (1991) Ninth Circuit
Border patrol agent’s observation that motorist became increasingly nervous and uneasy at end of initial check for illegal aliens constituted minimal, articulable suspicion necessary to justify brief further delay for dog sniff.
17) United States v Moralez (964 F. 2d 677 (1992) Seventh Circuit
Defendant voluntarily consented to search of automobile where defendant verbally consented three times and the officer told the defendant that a police dog would be used to assist searching the vehicle. The dog alerted to one spare tire and the defendant verbally consented to removing the tire from the rim.
18) United States v Morales-Zamora (974 F. 2d 149 (1992) Tenth Circuit
A “pretextual stop” occurs if police use legal justification to make stop when true purpose of stop is to search person or vehicle for unrelated and more serious crime for which police lack reasonable suspicion necessary to support stop.
Evidence in this case showed that primary reason for roadblock stop of defendant’s vehicle was not to check her driver’s license, but to ascertain, with the aid of narcotics detection dog, whether defendant possessed drugs, and thus, stop was pretextual and all that occurred after stop was tainted.
A roadblock set up for sole purpose of subjecting all stopped vehicles to a canine sniff violated Fourth Amendment.
(See City of Indianapolis v Edmond)
19) United States v Barbee (968 F. 2d 1026 (1992) Tenth Circuit
Dog sniff of vehicle for narcotics was not a search where vehicle was already lawfully seized.
Based upon the canine alert, once this gave agents probable cause to search luggage carried in vehicle, no warrant was necessary under the automobile exception.
Automobile exception allowed warrantless search of all containers in automobile.
20) United States v Hernandez (976 F. 2d 929 (1992) Fifth Circuit
Canine sniff of exterior of car referred by border patrol agent in secondary inspection area is not a search.
Agent had probable cause to search vehicle for narcotics when the vehicle had been properly stopped and a dog performing sniff test had alerted to the presence of drugs.
21) United States v Seals (987 F. 2d 1102 (1993) Fifth Circuit
Dog sniff is not a search. Officers do not need reasonable suspicion to conduct an exterior vehicle sniff.
Initial alert by dog during dog sniff, when a dog jumped up on driver’s side window, which officer interpreted as an alert on the interior of the vehicle, gave officers probable cause to search the passenger compartment.
When dog alerted to a box in the trunk, probable cause extended to the entire vehicle and all containers therein.
22) United States v Hatley (15 F. 3d 856 (1994) Ninth Circuit
The automobile exception to the warrant requirement applies to search of inoperable car parked on defendant’s property, where car was parked in driveway and was apparently mobile.
Officers are not required to ascertain functional capacity of vehicle in order to satisfy exigency requirement of vehicle exception to warrant requirement.
23) United States v Chavira (9 F. 3d 888 (1993) Tenth Circuit
Although consent or reasonable suspicion is not required for dog-sniff of legally detained vehicle, it is required for continued detention beyond lawful period.
Defendant’s consent to dog sniff of vehicle amounted to consent to resulting brief detention.
When dog alerts to vehicle, officers have probable cause to search it.
24) United States v Ludwig (10 F. 3d 1523 (1993) Tenth Circuit
Police officer’s entry of motel parking lot with dog for a canine sniff of vehicles parked in the lot was not a search.
Random and suspicionless dog sniffs of vehicles in motel parking lot was not a search.
Dog alert gave agents’ probable cause to search trunk of automobile.
Under the automobile exception to warrant requirement, if police have probable cause to search a car, no warrant is required even when police have time and opportunity.
25) United States v Jeffus (22 F. 3d 554 (1994) Fourth Circuit
Regardless of motive behind vehicle stop, the defendant’s vehicle failed to have proper safety devices and was justifiably stopped.
A dog sniff of the exterior of the vehicle during this stop was not a search. When the dog alerted to the car, the officer had probable cause to search.
The 15 minute period prior to the K-9 sniff during the traffic stop was reasonable.
26) United States v Sukiz-Grado (22 F. 3d 1006 (1994) Tenth Circuit
Dog’s alert behavior while sniffing vehicle’s exterior provided probable cause to believe the vehicle contained contraband and justified dog search of vehicle’s interior.
27) United States v Brown (24 F. 3d 1223 (1994) Tenth Circuit
A canine sniff of an automobile parked in a public parking lot is not a search.
28) United States v Diaz (25 F. 3d 392 (1994) Sixth Circuit
Evidence showed drug dog was properly trained and reliable, the dog was trained, certified and re-certified. The defendant’s expert, a former officer and now dog trainer, did not detract from dog’s trainer qualifications.
A very low percentage of false positives is not fatal to finding that drug dog was properly trained and certified.
Motel guest had no reasonable expectation of privacy in motel’s parking lot; thus agents could use drug dog in motel’s parking lot to sniff for drugs (vehicles).
29) United States v Klinginsmith (25 F. 3d 1507 (1994) Tenth Circuit
When drug sniffing dog alerted to a vehicle, there was probable cause to arrest occupant and to search the vehicle without warrant under the automobile exception.
30) United States v Perez (37 F. 3d 510 (1994) Ninth Circuit
Search of defendant’s automobile did not exceed scope of consent to search, even though a canine was used, where the defendant did not object at the time to the use of a narcotics dog.
Personal intrusion attributable to a dog sniff is minimal and the use of a narcotics dog is one of the least intrusive means of carrying out consensual search of automobile.
31) United States v Bloomfield (40 F. 3d 910 (1994) Eighth Circuit
An investigative stop must be supported by reasonable suspicion. The detention must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop.
The one-hour time period between when the officer pulled the defendant over for a traffic violation and when officer arrested defendant was not unreasonable period to wait for drug dog to verify officer’s suspicion that vehicle contained drugs.
Local government police forces and the state highway patrol cannot be expected to have drug dogs immediately available to all officers in the field at all times.
While waiting for the dog, the defendant:
• was told he was not under arrest;
• was not physically restrained;
• truck was not impounded or removed;
• truck was not searched until after drug dog provided probable cause.
Dog’s identification of drugs in luggage or in car provides probable cause that drugs are present, and vehicle then can be searched without warrant under the automobile exception to warrant requirement.
32) United States v White (42 F. 3d 457 (1994) Eighth Circuit
Following valid traffic stop, officer’s detention of vehicle while waiting for drug dog was based upon reasonable suspicion.
The detention of one hour and twenty minutes for drug dog was reasonable, where officer acted diligently to obtain the dog and the delay was caused only by the remote location of the closest available dog.
Local government police forces and the state highway patrol cannot be expected to have drug dogs immediately available to all officers in the field at all times.
33) United States v Resio-Trejo (45 F. 3d 907 (1995) Fifth Circuit
A vehicle stopped at an U.S. Border Patrol checkpoint. While the driver was asked routine citizenship questions, a Border Patrol canine alerted to the vehicle. The agent then sent the vehicle to the secondary inspection area. Drugs were then discovered hidden in the vehicle.
34) Romo v Champion(46 F. 3d 1013 (1995) Tenth Circuit
If a vehicle is lawfully detained, a canine sniff of the exterior is not a search.
When the odor of narcotics escapes from the interior of a vehicle, there is no reasonable privacy in the public airspace containing the incriminating odor.
The scope of the sniff is limited to the exterior of the vehicle.
35) United States v Friend (50 F. 3d 548 (1995) Eighth Circuit
Defendant’s car, which was parked on his property, outside locked gate and fence, between garage and alley, was not parked within “curtilage” of his residence and, thus, a dog sniff of the outside of his car was not a search.
Once the dog alerted for drugs in car, police had probable cause to impound vehicle and obtain a warrant to search it. Once probable cause is established, the car can be searched without a warrant under the automobile exception to warrant requirement.
36) Merrett v Moore (58 F. 3d 1547 (1995) Eleventh Circuit
State had authority to establish roadblock operation, though chief purpose of roadblock was to intercept illegal drugs, where police were also checking for driver’s license and vehicle registration.
Use of dogs to sniff exterior of cars at roadblock checkpoint without individualized suspicion of drug-related criminal activity was not unconstitutional search, where sniffs occurred while motorists were lawfully stopped in public place during license check, and they were not delayed to conduct sniffs.
(See City of Indianapolis v Edmond)
37) United States v Patterson (65 F. 3d 68 (1995) Seventh Circuit
Following defendant’s arrest for a misdemeanor traffic violation, exposing his vehicle to a narcotics detection dog, including the vehicle’s interior, was a permissible search incident to arrest.
Under the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement, all parts of the vehicle may be searched without a warrant where there is probable cause to believe the car contains contraband.
38) United States v Massie (65 F. 3d 843 (1995) Tenth Circuit
At fixed checkpoint, border patrol agents may stop, briefly detain and question people without any reasonable suspicion.
Agents at secondary inspection can inquire into any suspicious circumstances they observe, as long as questioning is related to their duties.
Detention of vehicle where questioning lasted 8 to 11 minutes from time of stop at primary, to the moment the dog alerted to the vehicle at secondary, was reasonable.
Agents, based upon the dog alert, had probable cause to search the vehicle.
39) United States v Zucco (71 F. 3d 188 (1995) Fifth Circuit
So long as police conducting routine traffic stop do no more than they are objectively authorized and legally permitted to do, their motives in doing so are irrelevant and hence not subject to inquiry.
In a valid traffic stop, police officer may question driver, request driver’s license, insurance papers, vehicle registration, run computer checks and issue citation.
Officers had probable cause to search vehicle and were authorized to examine behind wall of automobile after drug dog alerted to presence of contraband at that location.
Every part of the vehicle, which may conceal object of search, may be searched, based upon dog alert.
Automobile exception permits officers to search that vehicle at police station without warrant, based upon dog alert.
40) United States v Buchanon (72 F. 3d 1217 (1995) Sixth Circuit
Seizure of defendants and their disabled truck was unreasonable when Trooper initially approached defendants only to offer assistance with disabled truck, but after arrival of backup, troopers conducted a canine search from which drugs were discovered.
The fruits of the canine narcotics sniff resulting from the unjustified seizure had to be suppressed.
41) Whren v United States (517 U.S. 806, 135 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1996) U.S. Supreme Court
A traffic stop was permissible – regardless of whether a police officer subjectively believed that the occupants of an automobile might be engaging in some other illegal behavior – as long as a reasonable officer in the same circumstances “could have” stopped the car for the suspected traffic violation.
42) Ohio v Robinette (519 U.S. 33, 136 L. Ed. 2d 347 (1996) U.S. Supreme Court
There is nothing in the federal constitution’s Fourth Amendment requiring that a lawfully seized defendant (traffic stop) be advised that he is “free to go,” before defendant’s consent to search will be recognized as voluntary.
43) United States v Finke (85 F. 3d 1275 (1996) Seventh Circuit
After traffic stop, defendant, who was a passenger when vehicle was stopped, would not have felt free to drive away from scene, where he had just been told by officer that a canine unit was being called.
The officer did not ask defendant if he would be willing to wait for the canine unit.
44) United States v Carrazco (91 F. 3d 65 (1996) Eighth Circuit
Search of defendant’s truck after a traffic stop was valid where the officer received permission to conduct a dog sniff.
After one dog showed interest and another dog gave a positive alert, the officer had probable cause to believe drugs were present.
Police may then search the automobile and all containers within in.
45) Maryland v Wilson (137 L. Ed. 2d 41, 519 U.S. 408 (1997) U.S. Supreme Court
A police officer making traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of stop. (See United States v Jamal Williams)
46) United States v Wood (106 F. 3d 942 (1997) Tenth Circuit
During a routine traffic stop, officers are permitted to ask questions, examine documentation and run computer verifications to determine that driver has valid license, and is entitled to operate vehicle, and officers may detain driver and vehicle as long as necessary to make such determinations and to issue citation or warning.
During a routine traffic stop, to ensure officer’s safety, officer may obtain information regarding detainee’s criminal history.
Failure to consent to search cannot form any part of basis for reasonable suspicion.
Unusual travel plans and/or inconsistencies in information provided to officer may give rise to reasonable suspicion.
47) United States v Adams (110 F. 3d 31 (1997) Eighth Circuit
Officers stopped the suspect for a traffic violation, then arrested him on an outstanding warrant. The suspect’s truck was inventoried and stored.
Officers developed information that the truck contained contraband. A narcotics dog was brought to the storage yard and the dog searched the exterior and interior of the truck. The dog alerted to the console between the front seats.
Officers applied for a search warrant based upon the positive canine alert and the initial information. The judge issued the warrant and contraband was located.
48) United States v Holloman (113 F. 3d 192 (1997) Eleventh Circuit
Police officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment when, during traffic stop for traffic violation as part of a drug interdiction operation, they conducted a canine sniff of the exterior of defendant’s vehicle, where the canine unit was on the scene, when defendant denied consent to search vehicle, and he thus was not delayed by the canine sniff.
49) United States v Hunnicutt (135 F. 3d 1345 (1998) Tenth Circuit
Officers, who had probable cause based upon a positive canine alert on a package from inside a vehicle, properly impounded the vehicle to later search it.
50) United States v Beck (140 F. 3d 1129 (1998) Eighth Circuit
Initial consensual nature of encounter between officer and defendant, who was stopped for traffic infraction, continued until defendant asked what would happen if he refused to permit a search of his vehicle.
At that point, officer informed defendant that if he refused a consent search, the officer would have a canine unit conduct a sniff of the vehicle. The defendant was now detained.
51) United States v Winningham (140 F. 3d 1328 (1998) Tenth Circuit
Officers who stopped a van on a traffic stop, opened the van’s sliding door to conduct a visual search of the interior for additional occupants. The officer requested a narcotics dog and the officer left the sliding door open.
The drug dog’s act of leaping into the van through the open sliding door and searching the interior was unreasonable, because the conduct of the officers “facilitated” the dog’s entry into the van.
52) United States v Blaze (143 F. 3d 585 (1998) Tenth Circuit
Upon sniffing a vehicle, once a dog alerts to a container, probable cause exists to open and search it.
53) United States v Palacios-Suarez (149 F. 3d 770 (1998) Eighth Circuit
Even if an initial traffic stop was illegal, due to officer’s mistaken belief that tinted windows applied to vehicles that were registered in another state, the defendant consented to the search of his vehicle and the dog alert to the interior of the car was admissible.
54) United States v Huguenin (154 F. 3d 547 (1998) Sixth Circuit
Officers set up a “ruse” DUI checkpoint with signs indicating it was _ mile ahead. There was no such checkpoint.
Officers, without a traffic violation or reasonable suspicion stopped motorists who took highway exit prior to the ruse checkpoint, then ran narcotics dogs around the exterior of the vehicles for a canine sniff, violated the Fourth Amendment.
(See City of Indianapolis v Edmond)
55) United States v Glinton (154 F. 3d 1245 (1998) Eleventh Circuit
A canine sniff of a vehicle is not considered a “search” for Fourth Amendment purposes.
56) United States v Anchondo (156 F. 3d 1043 (1998) Tenth Circuit
A warrantless pat-down search of an individual, after drug-sniffing canine had alerted to the presence of drugs in his vehicle, was a valid search incident to the arrest, even though the arrest did not occur until after the pat-down search was performed.
The canine positive alert to the vehicle provided probable cause for the arrest, and since no contraband was located in the vehicle, this increased the chances that the contraband was on the driver’s body.
The actual arrest was not too remote, as it occurred immediately after drugs were found on driver’s body.
57) United States v Castro (166 F. 3d 728 (1999) Fifth Circuit
Driver and occupant of a car were arrested for traffic violations. The car was impounded and brought to the sheriff’s office. A drug-sniffing canine searched the exterior of the car and alerted.
The drugs that were found in the vehicle were admissible, given that the drugs inevitably would have been discovered during authorized inventory search.
58) United States v Owens (167 F. 3d 739 (1999) First Circuit
Officers who have probable cause to search a vehicle can search every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search.
The existence of probable cause to search an automobile based on an alert by a drug dog depends on the dog’s reliability.
59) United States v Lozano (171 F. 3d 1129 (1999) Seventh Circuit
The driver of a truck was arrested for a traffic violation. A narcotics dog arrived and “assisted in the inventory of the bed of the truck.” The dog alerted to duffel bags.
The opening of the duffel bags in the bed of the truck was a valid inventory search where it was conducted pursuant to the police department’s standard routine verbal policy of opening all closed containers that might contain valuables.
60) United States v $404,905 in U.S. Currency (182 F. 3d 643 (1999)
Eighth Circuit
A valid traffic stop may not be challenged because it was pretextual for another investigation. While conducting the stop, officers may ask motorist routine questions such as destination and purpose. However, the individual is not obligated to answer and cannot be arrested for refusing to answer.
A period of 30 seconds to two minutes that it took for a canine to search the exterior of a vehicle was not a detention, even though the traffic stop was complete and there was no reasonable suspicion.
When an officer makes a traffic stop and has immediate disposal of a canine, it is reasonable to require the motorist’s detention be momentarily extended for a canine sniff of the vehicle’s exterior.
61) United States v Dortch (199 F. 3d 193 (1999) Fifth Circuit
A dog sniff does not constitute a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
Once a police dog trained to sniff for drugs “alerted” to driver’s side of the car, probable cause to search the vehicle was established.
Although detention of driver, who was stopped for traffic offense, pending completion of computer check for outstanding warrants was reasonable, continued detention of driver to wait for arrival of canine unit exceeded scope of permissible stop, absent probable cause for extended detention.
62) United States v Garcia (205 F. 3d 1182 (2000) Ninth Circuit
Officers had probable cause to believe the trunk of a car contained narcotics, and to conduct a warrantless search, once a narcotics dog alerted.
The fact that the vehicle had been impounded and towed to the police station did not prevent officers from completing their warrantless search.
63) United States v Foley (206 F. 3d 802 (2000) Eighth Circuit
A reasonable investigation for a traffic stop may include:
• Asking for driver’s license and registration;
• Requesting driver to sit in patrol car;
• Asking driver his destination and purpose;
• Asking similar questions of vehicle occupants to verify information provided from driver.
Duration of traffic stop was reasonable, where officer obtained and verified information; this information created reasonable suspicion justifying a brief delay pending arrival of drug dog. The entire stop lasted under 30 minutes.
64) City of Indianapolis v Edmond (121 S. Ct. 447, 148 L. Ed. 2d 333 (2000) U.S. Supreme Court
Roadblocks established to interdict unlawful drugs violate the Fourth Amendment.
A roadblock must be a bona fide effort to implement an authorized regulatory policy, rather than a pretext for a dragnet search for criminals.
The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld brief, suspicionless seizures in these cases:
• A fixed checkpoint designed to intercept illegal aliens;
• Sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road;
• A roadblock to verify drivers’ licenses and registrations.
This decision does not affect the validity of border searches or searches in airports and government buildings. Nor does it impair police officers’ ability to act appropriately upon information that they properly learn during a lawful checkpoint stop.
The fact that officers walk a narcotics detection dog around the exterior of a car during a checkpoint does not transform the seizure into a search.
NOTE: Post September 11, 2001, fixed checkpoints designed to intercept illegal aliens are now being conducted nationwide.
(See: Illinois v Lidster for one additional lawful roadblock)
65) United States v Machuca-Barrera (261 F. 3d 425 (2001) Fifth Circuit
Because stops at an immigration checkpoint need not be justified by reasonable suspicion, court does not ask the officer to articulate a justification for the stop. Instead, the justification comes from its problematic purpose.
While a border patrol agent at an immigration checkpoint may refer a car to secondary inspection for any reason or no reason at all, the length of the detention is still limited by the immigration-related justification for the stop.
Border patrol agents may only conduct a drug-dog sniff if it does not lengthen a stop or if they obtain consent.
66) United States v Lebrun (261 F. 3d 731 (2001) Eighth Circuit
Twenty minute detention, based upon reasonable suspicion, following traffic stop while officer waited arrival of drug dog was not excessive.
Police cannot reasonably be expected to have dogs available for every police officer at every moment.
67) United States v Morgan (270 F. 3d 625 (2001) Eighth Circuit
A dog sniff of the exterior of a vehicle is not a search.
Defendant’s consent to search vehicle was not voluntary, after officer told her he would conduct a canine sniff on the exterior of the vehicle, if she did not consent.
A short detention of vehicle’s occupants while officer walked his drug dog around the vehicle following the stop for speeding, did not violate the occupant’s rights. The dog was at scene from beginning and it took only a short time to walk dog over to the vehicle where it alerted to presence of drugs.
68) United States v Williams (271 F. 3d 1262 (2001) Tenth Circuit
Detention of defendant at conclusion of traffic stop for 15 minutes awaiting arrival of drug detection dog was not unreasonable in the presence of reasonable suspicion of drug activity.
69) United States v Jones (275 F. 3d 648 (2001) Seventh Circuit
Drug sniffing dog’s alert to the presence of narcotics in vehicle, which had been lawfully stopped by police for traffic violation, established probable cause justifying search of the vehicle.
Actions of police officer in entering vehicle and moving it forward five feet so as to make it easier for drug sniffing dog to move around vehicle, although improper, did not render unreasonable for purpose of the Fourth Amendment. Subsequent search of the vehicle performed by police after dog alerted to presence of drugs, thus establishing probable cause.
70) United States v Linkous (285 F. 3d 716 (2002) Eighth Circuit
A short detention for a dog sniff after completion of a traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
The vehicle was delayed no more than seven or eight minutes until the dog completed its sniff of the van.
71) United States v Burton (288 F. 3d 91 (2002) Third Circuit
Seizure of the defendant’s vehicle for approximately 30 to 45 minutes, pending canine sniff of the vehicle, was reasonable where defendant conceded that officers possessed a reasonable, articulable suspicion that defendant was involved in criminal acts, as would support investigative stop of his vehicle. Officers proceeded diligently in bringing canine unit to vehicle.
72) United States v Carter (300 F. 3d 415 (2002) Fourth Circuit
Here, the government argued that the drug dog’s alerting on the driver door gave probable cause to search the entire vehicle. Probable cause must be tailored to specific compartments and containers within an automobile. The key is whether the dog alerted in the precise vicinity of the area searched.
In this case, the court found that the dog’s alerting to the driver door was sufficiently close to the trunk to give officers probable cause to believe it contained contraband.
73) United States v Gregory (302 F. 3d 805 (2002) Eighth Circuit
The Fourth Amendment grants an officer during a routine traffic stop latitude to:
• Check driver’s identification and vehicle registration;
• Ask the driver to step out of the vehicle and over to the patrol car;
• Inquire into the driver’s destination and purpose for the trip;
• Undertake similar questioning of the occupants to verify the information.
Officers need no reason to support the scan of a vehicle with a drug sniffing dog.
A dog sniff of car following traffic stop did not unreasonably extend the length of the detention, where there is no evidence that the dog sniff itself was unduly lengthy, and just over 20 minutes elapsed from the beginning of the stop to the completion of the dog sniff.
The drug sniffing dog’s alert on the vehicle provided probable cause to search the vehicle, despite contention that the driver’s pit-bull dog distracted the drug sniffing dog.
The drug sniffing dog was found to be reliable based upon:
• Dog was highly trained;
• Dog received satisfactory certification;
• Dog performed her duties flawlessly;
• Dog had never given a false positive alert.
74) United States v Mercado (307 F. 3d 1226 (2002) Tenth Circuit
When officers have probable cause to believe that an automobile contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment does not require them to get a warrant, even when they have opportunity to seek one.
The automobile exception to the search warrant requirement was applicable to vehicle that was temporarily immobile due to mechanical problem, where problem was readily repairable and vehicle was at open, public repair shop to which driver had access.
75) United States v Duffaut (314 F. 3d 203 (2002) Fifth Circuit
Stopped motorist’s consent was not needed in order for officers to perform free air search of vehicle by walking around it with drug sniffing dog.
Once drug sniffing dog has alerted to presence of narcotics, officers have sufficient probable cause to conduct a search of stopped vehicle.
76) United States v Hernandez (314 F. 3d 430 (2002) Ninth Circuit
At a Mexico/U.S. border crossing, a narcotics dog alerted to a vehicle in the primary inspection area. Upon the dog alert, border agents detention did not become an arrest when the agents removed three occupants from the minivan, temporarily placed defendants in handcuffs and took them into an office and left them un-cuffed there. The detention became an arrest only after agents positively identified marijuana and the defendant’s were again handcuffed and advised of their Miranda rights.
Border agents had probable cause to arrest the rear seat passenger in the minivan. The vehicle was known by officers to be commonly used for drug trafficking, agent interviewed the driver, the passenger acted suspiciously, seemed very nervous and stiff, tried to avoid eye contact with the agent, marijuana was found within reach of the passenger and the amount of marijuana was beyond that for personal use.
77) United States v Moreno-Vargas (315 F. 3d 489 (2002) Fifth Circuit
Checkpoint with primary purpose of identifying illegal immigrants is constitutional, regardless of whether checkpoint has secondary purpose of drug interdiction, unless length of detention is insufficiently limited.
Immigration stop at fixed checkpoint was reasonable, regardless of checkpoint’s alleged secondary purpose of drug interdiction, since the checkpoint had its primary programmatic purpose enforcement of immigration laws. The permanent presence of a dog cross-trained to detect drugs as well as humans did not affect duration of stop.
78) United States v Johnson (323 F. 3d 566 (2003) Seventh Circuit
In determining whether search of defendant’s vehicle was justified by probable cause, district court could not disregard alert by drug dog on grounds the dog’s handler did not testify at suppression hearing, when another officer, who observed the alert from a distance, did testify. The handler was not the only officer capable of interpreting the behavior of the dog, which was an aggressive alert, as alerting to the presence of drugs or drug infested currency.
79) United States v Moore (329 F. 3d 399 (2003) Fifth Circuit
Dog sniff of vehicle is not Fourth Amendment search, such as will require individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.
Alert by dog after sniffing motorist’s vehicle for presence of drugs gave officers probable cause to search the vehicle.
Automobiles and other conveyances may be searched without a warrant, provided that there is probable cause to believe the car contains contraband.
80) United States v Watts (329 F. 3d 1282 (2003) Eleventh Circuit
There are only two questions that must be answered in the affirmative before authorities may conduct a warrantless search of an automobile. The first is whether the automobile is really mobile, and all that is necessary to satisfy that element is that the automobile is operational. The second is whether there is probable cause.
Warrantless search of defendant’s car was authorized, where car was operational, and probable cause existed to search car for drugs, based on drug dog’s multiple positive responses to car.
81) United States v Sanchez-Pena (336 F. 3d 431 (2003) Fifth Circuit
Officer’s conduct was not coercive when he requested that defendant proceed to a vehicle checkpoint 30 miles away so that a canine inspection of the vehicle could be performed. The officer made the request only after he returned defendant’s documentation to defendant, who testified he then felt free to leave.
Assuming that proof of dog’s reliability was required in order to establish probable cause, evidence was sufficient to support the dog’s alert was reliable and established probable cause to search the vehicle. The dog and handler completed a police narcotic detector dog school and the handler was certified as a canine handler and had previously testified in court as an expert in canine handling.
82) United States v Yang (345 F. 3d 650 (2003) Eighth Circuit
Officer did not detain defendant by asking him for permission to search his vehicle after the traffic stop was over, where, after completing the traffic stop, officer immediately told the defendant he was free to go and asked for consent to search the vehicle.
When oral consent is voluntarily given, the absence of a signed consent form is immaterial.
Once the drug dog alerted to the defendant’s vehicle after the traffic stop, officer had probable cause to search the vehicle without a warrant.
83) United States v Brown (345 F. 3d 574 (2003) Eighth Circuit
Where, during course of consensual search of vehicle that officer had lawfully stopped for speeding, drug dog alerted upon sniff of the ceiling of the vehicle, officer had probable cause to remove false ceiling, regardless of whether his actions would have been justified by motorist’s original consent.
Motorist’s complaints about duration of consensual search of his vehicle were insufficient to establish intent to revoke his consent.
84) United States v Ibarra (345 F. 3d 711 (2003) Ninth Circuit
Fact that otherwise reasonable traffic stop for speeding was made as pretext to investigate driver’s suspected drug activity did not render stop unreasonable.
Presence of drug sniffing dog at location of valid traffic stop did not render stop and search of defendant’s vehicle unreasonable.
Officer’s had probable cause to search defendant’s vehicle after valid traffic stop, DEA provided information suspecting the defendant and drug sniffing dog alerted to presence of a drug’s SCENT in the vehicle. The handler saw the dog alert indicating that the dog smelled the ODOR of narcotics emanating from the vehicle, that would lead a reasonable officer to believe narcotics would be found inside the vehicle.
Officers may conduct a search of a vehicle without a warrant as long as they have probable cause.
85) Maryland v Pringle (124 S. Ct. 795 (2003) U.S. Supreme Court
Police officer had probable cause to believe that defendant, who was the front seat passenger in a vehicle, committed the crime of possession of cocaine, either solely or jointly with the other passengers of the vehicle. The defendant was one of three men riding in a vehicle at 3:16a.m., $763 of rolled-up cash was found in the glove compartment directly in front of the defendant, five plastic baggies of cocaine were behind the backseat armrest and accessible to all three vehicle occupants, and upon questioning, the three men failed to offer any information with respect to the ownership of the cocaine or money.
The probable cause standard is a practical, non-technical conception that deals with the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.
To determine whether an officer had probable cause to arrest an individual, a court will examine the events leading up to the arrest, and then decide whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of a reasonable police officer, amount to probable cause.
86) IIlinois v Lidster (540 U.S. 419 (2004) U.S. Supreme Court
Brief stops of motorists at highway checkpoint at which police sought information about recent fatal hit and run accident on highway, was reasonable.
The motorists who were systematically stopped so police could ask them about information on the accident and hand each driver a flyer requesting assistance in identifying the vehicle and driver involved, was reasonable, and thus did not violate the rights of a motorist who was arrested for driving under the influence when he arrived at stop.
87) United States v Martinez (354 F. 3d 932 (2004) Eighth Circuit
Officer who issued a warning ticket and then walked his drug dog around the vehicle was reasonable. A canine officer making a traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment by asking driver for his destination and purpose, checking license and registration, requesting the driver to step over to his patrol car and a short detention for a dog sniff after completion of the traffic stop was reasonable.
88) United States v Martinez (358 F. 3d 1005 (2004) Eighth Circuit
Law enforcement officer’s use of deceptive highway signs, indicating a drug enforcement checkpoint was ahead (a ruse checkpoint), and the fact that officers could have believed that defendant was carrying illegal drugs in his motor vehicle upon observing the defendant take the nearest exit, did not render otherwise valid traffic stop illegal, where there was no drug checkpoint, and officers did not stop every vehicle taking the exit, only those observed committing a traffic violation.
89) United States v Williams (359 F. 3d 1019 (2004) Eighth Circuit
Police ruse of alerting motorists on interstate highway to nonexistent drug checkpoint ahead in order to trick drug traffickers into taking little-used exit where they could be stopped for minor traffic violations, did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on use of drug checkpoints that have as their primary purpose general interest in crime control, since there was no checkpoint.
Motorist’s traffic violation supplied probable cause for the officer’s stop, and thus stop comported with the Fourth Amendment regardless of the fact that it was done as part of drug interdiction operation and in hope that it would lead to discovery of illicit drugs.
90) United States v Rosborough (366 F. 3d 1145 (2004) Tenth Circuit
A canine alert directed exclusively at the passenger compartment of defendant’s vehicle created probable cause to search the trunk of the vehicle as well.
91) Thornton v United States (124 S. Ct. 2127 (2004) U.S. Supreme Court
Once a police officer makes a lawful custodial arrest of an automobile’s occupant, the Fourth Amendment allows the officer to search the vehicle’s passenger compartment as a contemporaneous incident of arrest, even when an officer does not make contact until the person arrested has already left the vehicle.
92) United States v Gray (369 F. 3d 1024 (2004) Eighth Circuit
Even if defendant withdrew consent to search vehicle, officer’s actions of using drug detection dog to conduct external search did not require defendant’s consent and was acceptable, given that the search was supported by reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot.
93) United States v Hill (386 F. 3d 855 (2004) Eighth Circuit
Canine sniff of the exterior of a vehicle does not constitute a search. Finding that there was probable cause, based upon the canine alert, to search defendant’s vehicle for contraband, the warrantless search was permitted pursuant to the “automobile exception” to the search warrant requirement.
94) United States v Rogers (387 F. 3d 925 (2004) Seventh Circuit
Following traffic stop, once drug dog alerted to presence of drugs in vehicle that defendant was driving, officer’s reasonable suspicion elevated to probable cause to conduct further search of the vehicle.
95) Illinois v Caballes (125 S. Ct. 834 (2005) U.S. Supreme Court
Dog sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop, that reveals no information other than location of contraband that no individual has any right to possess, does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Use of a well trained narcotics detection dog, one that does not expose noncontraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view, during lawful traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Where lawful traffic stop was not extended beyond time necessary to issue warning ticket and to conduct ordinary inquiries incident to such a stop, another officer’s arrival at scene while stop was in progress and use of narcotics detection dog to sniff around the exterior of motorist’s vehicle does not have to be supported by some reasonable, articulable suspicion.
96) United States v Maltais (403 F. 3d 550 (2005) Eighth Circuit
Investigative detention by border patrol agent, during which defendant was held in patrol car for somewhere between 90 minutes and two hours, and was detained in all approximately two hours and 55 minutes before he was arrested, was not excessive, and thus did not constitute arrest. The detention occurred in remote area in North Dakota, 500 yards from Canadian border, in early morning, difficulty in obtaining drug dog was acute under such circumstances, and other officers were not dilatory in responding to agent’s call for assistance.
97) United States v Williams (403 F. 3d 1203 (2005) Tenth Circuit
A canine sniff on the exterior of the vehicle during a lawful traffic stop does not implicate legitimate privacy interests. A canine alert gives rise to probable cause to search a vehicle.
98) United States v Carpenter (406 F. 3d 915 (2005) Seventh Circuit
During lawful traffic stop, arrival of another officer at scene while stop was in progress and use of narcotics detection dog to sniff around exterior of motorist’s vehicle did not rise to level of cognizable infringement on motorist’s rights, such as would have to be supported by some reasonable, articulable suspicion, even if the stop was extended by at most five minutes beyond time necessary to issue ticket for evading red light and to conduct normal inquiries incident to such a stop.
99) United States v Martin (411 F. 3d 998 (2005) Eighth Circuit
Even if a dog sniff is thirty seconds to two minutes over the line drawn at the end of a routine traffic stop, a two-minute delay to conduct a canine sniff is a de minimis intrusion on the driver’s personal liberty that does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Traffic stop was not unreasonably prolonged by dog sniff in violation of driver’s Fourth Amendment rights when officer who made traffic stop deployed dog, which was in his squad car, within two minutes of giving traffic citation to driver.
100) United States v Sanchez (417 F. 3d 971 (2005) Eighth Circuit
Detention of vehicle’s occupants for 45 minutes following a traffic stop did not constitute a de facto arrest; length of the detention was reasonable, inasmuch as officers spent most of the encounter completing the stop, including trying to confirm the identify of passenger, who had provided suspect identification, and officers acted diligently to minimize the detention period employed the least intrusive means of detention and investigation.
Officer’s warrantless search of vehicle in which defendant was a passenger was justified by probable cause, where drug dog had alerted to the trunk of the vehicle.
The “automobile exception” to the search warrant requirement likewise applies to an inventory search conducted after the vehicle was towed.
101) United States v Jamal Williams (419 F. 3d 1029 (2005) Ninth Circuit
An officer effecting a lawful traffic stop may order the driver and passengers out of the vehicle.
Officer could order passenger who voluntarily got out of lawfully stopped vehicle back into the vehicle without violating passenger’s Fourth Amendment rights.
102) United States v Blaylock (421 F. 3d 758 (2005) Eighth Circuit
Drug sniffing dog’s alert to trunk of vehicle provided probable cause for warrantless search of vehicle.
103) United States v Martin (422 F. 3d 597 (2005) Seventh Circuit
Information lawfully obtained during traffic stop may provide the officer with reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct that will justify prolonging the stop to permit a reasonable investigation.
Use of a drug sniffing dog during an otherwise lawful traffic stop does not implicate a defendant’s legitimate privacy interests.
Once drug dog alerted to the presence of drugs, officer had probable cause to search defendant’s car.
104) United States v Jensen (425 F. 3d 698 (2005) Ninth Circuit
Impoundment of defendant’s car after defendant was arrested during valid traffic stop was justified. The arresting officer had probable cause to believe the car contained illegal drugs, and seizure and removal of car was permitted under community caretaker doctrine, to prevent car from obstructing traffic.
Use of a narcotic detection dog to sniff the car at the impound yard does not itself constitute a search.
105) United States v Williams (429 F. 3d 767 (2005) Eighth Circuit
The use of a drug sniffing dog on the exterior of a vehicle during a valid traffic stop does not infringe on any Fourth Amendment rights.
Officer did not need probable cause or reasonable suspicion before calling for drug dog unit after stop of vehicle for traffic violation since dog sniff of exterior of vehicle was not a search.
Traffic stop was not unreasonably prolonged where wait for sniffing dog was only five to six minutes.
106) United States v Davis (430 F. 3d 345 (2005) Sixth Circuit
Officers had reasonable suspicion that defendant was transporting narcotics to detain him for additional 30 to 45 minutes while drug sniffing dog was brought to scene of traffic stop.
Once officer’s reasonable suspicion that defendant was carrying narcotics was dispelled at scene of traffic stop when drug dog failed to alert on vehicle, delaying defendant an additional hour in order to permit a second examination of vehicle by another drug dog was unreasonable seizure and violated the Fourth Amendment.
107) United States v Perez (440 F. 3d 363 (2006) Sixth Circuit
Throughout defendant’s detention following Terry stop of vehicle in which they were driver and passenger, law enforcement officers were engaged in continuous activity aimed at confirming or dispelling reasonable suspicion that transfer of duffle bags from vehicle to second vehicle, which officers had observed at hotel, was part of drug transaction. Thus, continued detention of defendants for an hour between completion of consensual search of their vehicle and police dog’s alert to second vehicle did not impermissibly extend scope of Terry stop. Although first dog on scene did not alert to second vehicle, officers believed bags were not in vehicle long enough to produce odor, and officers searched hotel room while awaiting second dog’s alert.
There was evidence in this case that the agents knew how long the duffle bags had been in the vehicle and had reason to believe that the first dog failed to alert because the bags had not been in the vehicle long enough for the odor to escape. The court concluded that calling a second drug detection dog was a reasonable investigative technique under the circumstances. Under these circumstances, the failure of the first dog to alert to the vehicle did not dispel reasonable suspicion that drugs would be found in it and use of a second drug detection dog served a reasonable investigatory purpose.
Police canine sniff of defendant’s vehicle did not constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
108) United States v Eura (440 F. 3d 625 (2006) Fourth Circuit
A K-9 sniff is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and, thus, neither probable cause nor a warrant is required.
Reasonable suspicion is required for the temporary seizure of the vehicle and any occupants that are necessary to facilitate a K-9 sniff of the exterior of a vehicle.
Agents’ failure to find drugs in defendant’s home pursuant to a search warrant did not prevent the agents from ordering K-9 sniff of defendant’s automobiles.
109) United States v Alexander (448 F. 3d 1014 (2006) Eighth Circuit
Dog sniffs that occur within a short time following the completion of a traffic stop are not constitutionally prohibited if they constitute only de minimis intrusions on the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Even if lawfully initiated traffic stop terminated at the point at which trooper told defendant that he would receive only a warning, a subsequent conducted dog sniff was a de minimis intrusion on defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. At most, defendant’s detention was extended some four minutes from the point at which he was notified that he would receive a warning ticket to the point at which the dog sniff was completed.
Drug dog’s identification of drugs in defendant’s car provided probable cause that drugs were present, which entitled the officers to search the vehicle forthwith pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.
110) United States v Valle Cruz (452 F. 3d 698 (2006) Eighth Circuit
Law enforcement officer had probable cause to justify warrantless search of an automobile when drug-sniffing dog arrived. Driver attempted to interfere with search and subsequently resisted officer’s demands that she exit the vehicle.
A determination of probable cause became a foregone conclusion when the canine handler tried to run the drug dog around the vehicle despite suspect’s opposition. She interfered to such an extent that the dog had to be pulled away so he would not bite her. After that, the officer asked the suspect to get out of the car and she resisted for several minutes, locking herself in the car. By then, the officer’s determination that he had probable cause to search the vehicle was objectively reasonable.
111) United States v Ladeaux (454 F. 3d 1107 (2006) Tenth Circuit
The U.S. Court of Appeals had issue with ordering a vehicle’s occupant to close windows and open vehicle’s air ventilation to help facilitate a canine sniff:
Remand was warranted to permit district court to consider whether to suppress evidence based solely on request made by law enforcement officer, in ordering defendant and another passenger to exit vehicle and that vehicle’s windows be closed and its vents be opened.
The district court had previously considered both the request and order to exit vehicle together in applying Supreme Court’s decision in Maryland v Wilson, which dealt only with ordering occupants out of vehicle and not with other, ancillary requests.
112) United States v Tamari (454 F. 3d 1259 (2006) Eleventh Circuit
Agents hand searched a vehicle pursuant to a search warrant. They did not locate any contraband. They then brought in a narcotics detection dog.
Agents had probable cause to search the vehicle once more after the narcotics detection dog circled the vehicle. The dog sniffed the vehicle and alerted agents to the presence of narcotics in the rear of the vehicle. We have long recognized that probable cause arises when a drug-trained canine alerts to drugs. The dog’s positive alert was itself sufficient to give agents probable cause to search the vehicle a second time.
113) United States v Carpenter (462 F. 3d 981 (2006) Eighth Circuit
Police officer had reasonable suspicion of drug activity to justify brief detention of driver for purpose of conducting dog sniff of vehicle. Driver had parked his vehicle off side of road after exiting highway after signs indicated that a drug checkpoint was ahead.
Driver claimed to be looking for gas station even though he had a quarter of a tank of gas; sign for exit taken did not indicate that exit had gas services; signs on highway indicated gas services at previous exits; and when questioned about his travel, driver explained he was traveling from Austin, Texas to New York, despite providing car rental agreement indicating that car had been rented in El Paso.
114) United States v Mendoza (468 F. 3d 1256 (2006) Tenth Circuit
Probable cause was unnecessary to detain driver and vehicle pending arrival of drug dog following traffic stop, where trooper had reasonable suspicion to believe that driver was engaged in the unlawful transportation of contraband.
Forty-minute detention of vehicle following traffic stop while awaiting arrival of nearest handler with properly trained dog to sniff vehicle for contraband was reasonable.
Alert by drug dog on rear door area, near gas cap, created probable cause to search the vehicle following traffic stop.
|
