Dog Sniff Delay Of 20 Minutes is Too Much – Case Dismissed
W. F. "Casey" Ebsary Jr
Dog Sniff Delay Of 20 Minutes is Too Much
Dog Sniff Delayed in Florida
Doggie delayed is Justice denied?
This guy was driving on I-75 in Alachua County near Gainesville Florida home of the Florida Gators. The cop claimed he had cut off a truck, perform a traffic stop, and then called for a drug dog. This case has the shortest delay I have ever seen in any drug dog case since the Supreme Court ruled recently. Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015).
The delay was at most 20 minutes. This court essentially ruled that any delay without a reasonable suspicion was unconstitutional. Doggie delayed is Justice denied?
One commentator summarized, “Trial court erred in denying motion to suppress drugs found after dog alerted to presence of narcotics in vehicle where traffic stop was delayed in order to perform dog sniff and there was no basis in record to conclude that reasonable suspicion existed to justify prolonging the stop . . . .” Florida Law Weekly
Florida Drug Dog Search Laws: Expert FAQs
Florida Drug Dog Search Laws: Expert FAQs
Can a police officer in Florida threaten to use a drug dog to get me to consent to a search?
Police officers often use the threat of a drug dog to pressure individuals into consenting to a search. However, you have the right to refuse a search. Don’t be intimidated by these tactics.
What if the officer detains me longer than necessary while waiting for a drug dog to arrive?
The Supreme Court case Rodriguez v. United States established that police cannot prolong a traffic stop beyond the time needed to address the initial reason for the stop without reasonable suspicion. If an officer detains you longer than necessary to wait for a drug dog, this could be a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights.
What is considered “reasonable suspicion” for an officer to extend a traffic stop?
Reasonable suspicion requires more than a hunch. The officer must be able to articulate specific facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that criminal activity is afoot.
What should I do if an officer threatens to call a drug dog during a traffic stop?
Remain calm, be polite, and clearly state that you do not consent to a search. It’s important to document the interaction if possible, noting the time the stop began and ended.
Can I challenge a drug dog search in court?
Yes. You can file a motion to suppress the evidence found during the search, arguing that the search was illegal because it was based on an unlawful extension of the traffic stop or lacked probable cause.
What are some common mistakes people make during a traffic stop involving a drug dog?
Common mistakes include consenting to a search without an attorney present, volunteering information, and failing to document the interaction with the police.
Does the Rodriguez decision apply to all types of police stops, or just traffic stops?
While Rodriguez specifically addressed traffic stops, the principle of not prolonging a stop without reasonable suspicion applies to other types of investigative detentions as well.
What if the drug dog alerts to my car, but no drugs are found?
A drug dog alert alone may not be enough to establish probable cause, especially if the dog is not trained to differentiate between legal and illegal substances.
How can a Florida criminal defense attorney help me in a drug dog search case?
An experienced attorney can analyze the circumstances of the search, file motions to suppress evidence, and fight to protect your rights in court.
What is the best way to avoid problems with drug dog searches?
The best way to avoid problems is to know your rights and not consent to any searches without first consulting with an attorney.
Excerpts From Drug Dog Sniff Opinion
“driving on I-75 when he was pulled over by an officer due to an improper lane change that cut off a semi-truck. At the initiation of the traffic stop, the officer called for a K-9 unit to perform a sniff search”
“sixteen minutes later, and twenty minutes into the stop, the dog alerted to the presence of narcotics, and Wooden was placed under arrest and charged with possession of a controlled substance”
“the trial court found that the traffic stop was delayed, characterizing it as “de minimis” and a “very little” delay. As Wooden points out on appeal, the decision in Rodriguez does not frame the quantum of permissible delay in these terms. Rather, the “critical question . . . 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.’” 135 S. Ct. at 1616.”
“because there is no basis in the record to conclude that reasonable suspicion existed to justify prolonging the stop . . . we REVERSE the trial court’s order denying . . . dispositive motion to suppress and REMAND with instructions to vacate his conviction.”
20 Minutes is Too Much – Drug Case Tossed
Complete Drug Dog Sniff Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D16-2077
_____________________________
GREGORY WOODEN,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.
Mark W. Moseley, Judge.
April 18, 2018
PER CURIAM.
Gregory Wooden appeals his conviction for possession of narcotics, arguing that the traffic stop that led to his arrest was unconstitutionally prolonged in order to perform a dog sniff search.
At approximately midnight on September 30, 2015, Wooden was driving on I-75 when he was pulled over by an officer due to an improper lane change that cut off a semi-truck. At the initiation of the traffic stop, the officer called for a K-9 unit to perform a sniff search of the exterior of Wooden’s car. After its arrival approximately sixteen minutes later, and twenty minutes into the stop, the dog alerted to the presence of narcotics, and Wooden was placed under arrest and charged with possession of a controlled substance without a prescription. Wooden moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the original traffic stop that led to his arrest
2
was prolonged in order to perform the dog sniff search, contrary to the dictates of Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015). The trial court denied the motion, stating that Wooden was “not unreasonably detained during the traffic stop as [the officer] was still in the process of issuing a written warning to the Defendant while the narcotics K-9 alerted to the Defendant’s vehicle.” Appellant pled nolo contendere to the possession charge, but reserved his right to appeal the denial of the dispositive motion.
In its oral pronouncement, the trial court found that the traffic stop was delayed, characterizing it as “de minimis” and a “very little” delay. As Wooden points out on appeal, the decision in Rodriguez does not frame the quantum of permissible delay in these terms. Rather, the “critical question . . . 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.’” 135 S. Ct. at 1616.
Because the trial court concluded that time was added, which delayed the traffic stop before the dog sniff was performed, it was necessary for the trial court to make a baseline finding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain Wooden for the prolonged period during which the sniff occurred. Although an officer “may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop. . . ., he may not do so in a way that prolongs the stop, absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual.” Id. at 1615. Because reasonable suspicion was not addressed below, and because there is no basis in the record to conclude that reasonable suspicion existed to justify prolonging the stop in accordance with Rodriguez, we REVERSE the trial court’s order denying Wooden’s dispositive motion to suppress and REMAND with instructions to vacate his conviction. See Maldonado v. State, 992 So. 2d 839, 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).
RAY, MAKAR, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
3
_____________________________
Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Richard M. Bracey, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Drug2Go
Scott Cooke
Five Stars on Google
Summary
This is the guy you are looking for. Highly motivated and very knowledgeable. Literally saved my life. Looking forward to doing more business with him as I open this new chapter of my life.
