Constitution FTW. However I’ve heard cops just drag out a traffic stop to create enough time to get the dogs out there, so it didn’t change things much. They can then claim they weren’t detaining you unreasonably since you were still detained for the traffic stop.
Does anyone know if it actually had the intended effect (preventing police from detaining drivers for routine traffic stops) or do the police just work around the decision by dragging their feet until a K9 unit can arrive?
I’ve never had drugs in my car, but I have been detained for traffic related issues. I’ve never been detained for more than 5-10 minutes irrelevant of whether I got a warning or a ticket, I don’t believe. Can cops just drag their feet for a half an hour until the K9 unit comes, or would that get thrown out?
Basically, did the SCOTUS decision have the intended effect or have cops just worked around it?
This exact scenario happened to me a few year ago. Pulled over for the most routine of traffic incidents (driving in the left lane while technically not passing someone) and detained for over an hour until drug sniffing dogs could be brought to the scene (I refused to let them search my car). Total bullshit, in Kansas-- driving while sporting a CA license plate.
Oh, and the dogs just coincidentally signaled signs of drugs in my trunk which the cops (shocker!!) could not find.
It was a total set-up. Will never drive in that state again. The cops had tailed me for a long time waiting to pounce. I stayed in the left lane because there was a lot of water on the road, and all the semis in the right lane kicked up spray making it impossible to see.
I’ve been pulled over probably close to 10 times in all the years I’ve been driving, and I’ve never had a cop ask to search my car or bring in the drug dogs. But I’m guessing it varies based on many factors (the appearance of the driver, whether the cops think the driver and the car match, if the license plate is out of state, etc). Drug dogs are fairly unreliable (a study with hispanics found only 8% of hispanics who a drug dog detected against actually had drugs) and to a large degree cops can just make them ‘detect’ drugs so they have an excuse to search.
Rodriguez V. United States was decided on April 21st, 2015 so it would’ve been after your incident.
You said it took an hour for the dogs to arrive. Like I said in my OP, I’ve never had it take more than 5-10 minutes (usually closer to 5) to go from pulled over to free to go. I can’t imagine a cop could drag his feet for an hour and then present it as ‘I was still just writing a ticket’ if it is challenged in court. It doesn’t take an hour to write a speeding ticket.
It wasn’t “I was just writing a ticket”. He wanted to search my car, and I said no. Then he said he was bringing in the dogs. I wasn’t sure whether or not he was constitutionally allowed to do that, but I was certain I didn’t have any drugs in my car, so I went for the path of least resistance. All the time while were “waiting” for the dogs to show up, he was quizzing me about my reason for traveling. I really felt like telling him that a citizen in the US didn’t need to have a reason to drive, and if he did, he didn’t to tell a fucking cop. But I played cool, and just chatted with him, tell him nothing of substance.
The point of ‘just writing a ticket’ is that cops cannot legally detain you for longer than it takes to handle a vehicle issue. There is no reason to detain someone for an hour for driving in the left lane. If a cop tried that now, wouldn’t a lawyer be able to challenge the fact that it doesn’t take an hour to write a ticket for driving in the left lane, and anything found is not admissible? If so, wouldn’t that lower incentives for police to engage in that kind of behavior to skirt the law?
However can cops just fudge probable cause, or drag their feet until the drug dogs arrive to get around the 2015 ruling? That is what I want to know.
I suspect the practical answer is, they can do this up to a point - spin out a 5-minute job to 10 minutes, say, but not to an hour. If they are determined and co-ordinated, they can “improve” on this by, e.g, altering the procedures for dealing with traffic stops so they regularly take 10 to 15 minutes, and then spin that out to 20-25 mins in some instances. But they’d need to document the decision to adopt newer, longer procedures carefully, avoiding any “smoking gun” in the files suggesting that this was done partly to make drug searches easier, and have a well-argued objective case for the changes, unrelated to facilitating more drug searches.
We can’t delay the stop unless we can articulate a justifiable reason as to why. Sometimes the state DOT computers are slow or there is a near hit on NCIC. But these things would delay the stop regardless if the officer intended to call for a K9 or not.
A few officers in our area have been utilizing the following practice for traffic stops:
They see vehicle and have a reason to stop it for a violation
They tell K9 to come to XYZ area before initiating the stop (the area they are in)
They make the stop
K9 arrives and conducts their sniff before originating officer finishes their paperwork related to stop reason.
Absent any reasonable suspicion [for the K9 use, not the stop], the stopping officer made a decision to stop a vehicle, told the K9 where to start going towards, and then made the stop. The thought process behind that is he did not prolong the stop by asking for a K9 after the stop was initiated.
This exact scenario was put to the Wisconsin State Attorney Generals office. AAG Dave Perlman stated he did not have a problem with this and it did not violate Rodriguez in and of itself.
I was detained at a sobriety checkpoint while a canine officer was called. My jacket had been at a friend’s apartment while I helped my daughter assemble IKEA stuff, and the jacket reeked of reefer. I knew my car was clean, as was I, so I refused a search.
When the canine’s handler arrived he did a brief interview with me (I was still in the vehicle). We talked, he looked at my eyes, he sniffed the sleeve of my jacket. He refused to get his dog out of the car, and reprimanded the cop who had him come to the scene, explaining that I had no evidence of recent use (which was his stated reason for calling for the dog). He apologized to me and drove off. The checkpoint cop was pissed, but sent me on my way.
Additionally, there is a (likely apocryphal) story about stoners in a Texas town where the cops are stopping and searching random youngsters’ cars. They began saving their stems and scrap, soaking it in rubbing alcohol to create a tincture, then spraying their car interiors with it.
When they are stopped for a busted taillight, and a k9 called, the dog goes nuts, but the search doesn’t find anything.
Rodriguez was significant because it signaled a (welcome - IMO) departure from the consistent trend in the other direction over the past few decades WRT what constituted an impermissible stop/search, and privacy law.
Consider it in the context of various holdings concerning traffic stops, stop and frisk, use of infrared detectors to justify home searches, consent, etc. IMO, the past 2-3 decades saw a disturbing deference to police powers at the cost of personal liberties. And this was boosted on steroids after 9/11.
It changed everything if you the time and money to fight illegal searches and seizures up to the high courts. For everyone else it makes no difference. It’s just stop and frisk for cars, it’s been going on for a long time, and rulings on the validity of the practice may be useful after the fact at trial but have no impact on the practice itself.
Um… I think you may be thinking Kyllo went the other way. Infrared detection as a basis for warrants for home searches was struck down. Scalia wrote for a majority that included Ginsburg and Breyer.
Do you need reasonable suspicion before you call in the dog?
That is, I pull you over for a traffic stop. I just happen to have the dog in the seat next to me. Can I have the dog sniff the car for drugs because I pulled you over for a minor traffic violation, or do I need to be able to say “The driver acted high” or whatever?
If I recall correctly, the dog sniff is not a search so if the dog is already present then it can do whatever it does. The waiting was the issue in Rodriguez.
I’m interested in this too. Can the cops call the dogs in whenever they have a hunch or do they need probable cause to call the dogs to meet them before they make a traffic stop?
I assumed cops had found a way around this ruling, and I guess this is it. They tail a car for a while until the K9 units are nearby, then they pull them over which means they only need a few minutes for the K9 to reach them.