I am no expert on the law, so I suppose I am asking if the following thing I’ve been told is true:
I am given to understand that an important element of the legalities is how the dog is viewed under the law.
If the dog were viewed as equipment, as military dogs are I believe, then it would be illegal to use one to examine your car without probable cause. Using a detection device counts as searching, even from outside the car.
However, “Officer Lewis indicated to me that he smelled drugs in the car” is probable cause to search. So long as the officer is only using his natural senses, anything he can detect from outside is fair game.
Which is why police dogs are not “equipment”, but rather are police officers.
I think it wouldn’t count as prolonging if the car that pulled you over contained a K9. “I wanted my partner to have a look at the situation” just sounds like normal police work. Even if your partner isn’t allowed out of the car by himself.
What’s really at question here is when the officer performing the traffic stop summons another officer to have a look. The court’s position appears to be that if the other officer cannot arrive before you finish checking the license and writing up the citation, you have no cause to detain the driver any longer than that.
I think that’s a good interpretation of the caselaw. In Caballes, the officer was still writing the ticket when the dog sniff was conducted (a second officer had overhead the stop over the radio and decided to head over to the scene of the stop with the drug-detection dog – the sniff was conducted while the first officer was writing the ticket in his cruiser). In Rodriguez, however, the officer had already finished writing the ticket and even returned the driver’s documents before conducting the dog sniff (additionally, the officer radioed for a back-up officer before he finished writing the ticket, presumably for safety reasons so he could conduct the dog sniff). Justice Ginsberg (writing for the majority) explained that Rodriguez was consistent with and “adheres” to Caballes to the extent the latter provided that a traffic stop “can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the [traffic stop] mission.” However, it’s clear the case was the result of some compromise to limit the scope of earlier caselaw, as Justice Ginsberg had previously dissented in Caballes, where she expressed her discomfort with drug-sniff dogs.
I think you are probably right. However, if we take the Supreme Court at their word, the traffic stop may not be “prolong[ed]” by a suspicionless dog sniff.
As a defense attorney, I would argue (and I current have such a motion pending ) that when a solo officer travelling with K9 interrupts the normal processing of a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff, he has prolonged the stop. The processing now takes longer: the officer is leading the dog around the car instead of using that time to process the license, registration, insurance, etc.
I’ll admit that this is probably a losing argument. I don’t think that the Supreme Court meant to uphold Cabellas and yet eviscerate it at the same time.
The next argument, although I’m sure it has been raised before, is that the dog’s “hit” signal is a statement and is thus hearsay and inadmissible without putting the dog on the stand.
I think that is a reasonable interpretation. This seems to be limited to only dog sniffs that occur with no RAS. It was ruled earlier that a dog sniff is allowed without RAS since there is no intrusion. But this case limits it to only situations when it can be done without prolonging the stop beyond what the initial stop was for. With RAS the investigative detention is allowed for a reasonable amount of time but there is no strict time limit.
That is untrue. The main reason for the law to treat K9s differently is to enhance penalties for assaulting or killing one. In most if not all states normal dogs are considered property which would make injuring or killing one a minor crime.
The courts treat K9s as they are, dogs with specific training. In the cases we are talking about the court does not treat the dogs as police officers. I don’t often work with K9s but I have never seen a report where a K9 was described like it was a human officer sniffing around a car.
) that when a solo officer travelling with K9 interrupts the normal processing of a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff, he has prolonged the stop. The processing now takes longer: the officer is leading the dog around the car instead of using that time to process the license, registration, insurance, etc.