Dog Sniff Delay Of 20 Minutes is Too Much - Case Dismissed

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 

Excerpts From 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 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.

Dog Sniff Drug Dog Oxycodone Trafficking Conviction Reversed

Drugs (Oxycodone)  suppressed when officer detained driver to wait for drug dog on seatbelt ticket.

Appellant Dravien Jones appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found in his vehicle during a traffic stop.  Consistent with the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015), we agree with Appellant that the search occurred during an illegal detention.  We therefore reverse his conviction.  

Supreme Court cases have held that a traffic stop “can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission” of issuing a ticket,

Background 

 An officer of the Sebastian Police Department stopped Appellant after observing that he was driving his vehicle without wearing a seatbelt.  During the stop, Appellant provided the officer with his driver’s license and admitted to the officer his seatbelt was broken.  The officer testified that Appellant “appeared excessively nervous” during the stop and that the address on Appellant’s license may have been incorrect.  Based on these observations, the officer sought permission to search Appellant’s vehicle.  Appellant refused to grant such permission.      

 The officer instructed Appellant to exit the vehicle and conducted a dog sniff of the vehicle.  The dog alerted during the sniff, which led the officer to search the vehicle and find approximately twenty oxycodone tablets.  The officer estimated approximately three minutes elapsed between the beginning of the traffic stop and the dog sniff.  The officer stated that although Appellant provided him with his driver’s license, the officer never did anything with the license.  Similarly, the officer never wrote a citation for a seatbelt violation, nor did he begin writing such a ticket. 

"In this case, the officer abandoned his reason for the traffic stop (writing the seatbelt citation) and instead chose to conduct the sniff of Defendant’s vehicle.  Once the officer decided against writing the citation, the purpose for the stop was complete and the justification for the stop was no longer valid."

  Appellant was charged with trafficking oxycodone.  He moved to suppress the discovery of the oxycodone, alleging the officer’s search of his vehicle was unconstitutional.  The trial court denied the motion, finding that although the officer lacked “articulable suspicion of criminal activity” prior to the search, the stop was not prolonged by the sniff, as it occurred within the time it would have taken to write a citation.  Appellant entered a plea of no contest and expressly reserved the right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his dispositive motion to suppress evidence incident to the search.  He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to a three-year mandatory minimum sentence in prison. 

Analysis 

 “The standard of review applicable to a motion to suppress evidence requires that this Court defer to the trial court’s factual findings but review legal conclusions de novo.”  Backus v. State, 864 So. 2d 1158, 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). 

 The Supreme Court recently addressed the acceptable scope of detentions with regards to dog sniffs in Rodriguez.  The Court held that “the tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure’s ‘mission’—to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop, [Illinois v.] Caballes, 543 U.S. [405,] 407 [(2005),] and attend to related safety concerns.”  Rodriguez, 135 S. Ct. at 1614.  “Because addressing the infraction is the purpose of the stop, it may ‘last no longer than is necessary to effectuate th[at] purpose.’”  Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 (1983) (plurality opinion)).  The officer’s “[a]uthority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed.”  Id.  When determining the reasonable time to complete the required tasks, the court must also consider the “whether the police diligently pursue their investigation.”  United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 709 (1983).  

Prior Supreme Court cases have held that a traffic stop “can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission” of issuing a ticket, Caballes, 543 U.S. at 407, and that a seizure is lawful only “so long as [unrelated] inquiries do not measurably extend the duration of the stop.”  Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 333 (2009).  Rodriguez, however, eliminates any ambiguity about the reasonableness of the time required for the officer to complete a traffic stop.  As the Court made clear, “[i]f an officer can complete traffic-based inquiries expeditiously, then that is the amount of ‘time reasonably required to complete [the stop’s] mission.’”  Rodriguez, 135 S. Ct. at 1616 (second alteration in original) (quoting Caballes, 543 U.S. at 407).  “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.’”  Id.  

In this case, the officer abandoned his reason for the traffic stop (writing the seatbelt citation) and instead chose to conduct the sniff of Defendant’s vehicle.  Once the officer decided against writing the citation, the purpose for the stop was complete and the justification for the stop was no longer valid.  See Royer, 460 U.S. at 500. (“The scope of the detention must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification.”).  Because the officer no longer had any valid reason to detain Appellant, the search of Appellant’s vehicle was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights and, as such, the evidence found as a result of the search should have been suppressed. 

This is not to say that officers can never conduct dog sniffs during routine traffic stops.  A sniff is still permitted so long as, in the absence of an articulable suspicion of criminal activity prior to the search, it does not extend the time it takes the detaining officer to complete the tasks which justified the detention.  For instance, the Supreme Court found the dog sniff search constitutional in Caballes:  “While [the officer who had initiated the traffic stop] was in the process of writing a warning ticket, [the second officer who had arrived on the scene] walked his dog around [the defendant’s] car.”  Caballes, 543 U.S. at 406. 

The State argues the officer’s failure to write a seatbelt citation in this case is not relevant to the constitutional analysis and likens this case to Finizio v. State, 800 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).  That case is distinguishable.  In Finizio, the detaining officer stopped a driver for driving erratically.  Id. at 348.  While talking with the driver, the officer smelled alcohol and began a DUI investigation that ultimately led to the discovery of cocaine in the driver’s pocket.  Id.  Unlike the actions taken by the officer in Finizio, a dog sniff is not part of a normal traffic stop, Rodriguez, 135 S. Ct. at 1615, and in this case, the officer’s routine traffic stop failed to 

produce any evidence of another crime that would justify the search of Appellant’s vehicle.  Furthermore, even if Finizio were not distinguishable, our precedent from 2001 cannot override the United States Supreme Court’s holding from just last year. 

Conclusion 

We agree with the trial court that, prior to the canine search at issue, the officer had no “articulable suspicion of criminal activity” on the part of Appellant.  Thus, the officer had no legal authority to detain Appellant outside the limited purpose provided by the traffic violation.  Once the officer abandoned this line of inquiry, the justification for the stop had expired and Appellant was free to leave.  The dog sniff, therefore, prolonged the stop in violation of Appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights.  The evidence obtained as a direct result of the sniff should have been suppressed.  Accordingly, we reverse and remand the case to the trial court to dismiss the charges against Appellant. 

 Reversed. 

STEVENSON and MAY, JJ., concur. 

*            *            * 

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. 

Complete Opinion of 

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

FOURTH DISTRICT 

DRAVIEN JERROD JONES, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

No. 4D15-639 

[March 9, 2016] 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Robert L. Pegg, Judge; L.T. Case No. 312013CF000901A. 

Kai Li Aloe Fouts of Eisenberg & Fouts, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. Acuña, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. 

FORST, J. 

    

Drug Sniffing Dog Accuracy Update

Drug Sniffing Dog Accuracy

Guy gets 20 years when drug dog

who graduated at the bottom of his class

finds a stash

How accurate must a drug sniffing dog be?

Courts have frequently addressed drug dogs and drug dog training to evaluate whether the indication of drugs during a walk-around is sufficient to justify a complete search. One court ruled that even  though 46 percent of the time, the dog was wrong, that poses no problem to the nearly half of citizens detained and searched with no drugs found.

Cops use dogs to detect many things other than drugs. Sniffing dogs can also detect bombs, blood, and bodies. Drugs are the most profitable use of these furry friends, since forfeiture of vehicles and cash can follow a drug seizure. Dogs can be trained to detect methamphetamine, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and ecstasy.  The dog sniff can provide probable cause to search a vehicle, property, a home or arrest a person. Some Judges have expressed concern, but convictions are supported even where, "overall accuracy rate in the field (i.e., the number of times he alerts and his human handler finds drugs) is not much better than a coin flip (59.5%)." US v Bentley, No. 10-10108-001 (7th Cir 2015). 

See this link for the court's complete opinion: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2015/D07-28/C:13-2995:J:Wood:aut:T:fnOp:N:1594846:S:0

How do they grade a drug dog, drug sniffing dogs, in drug sniffing dog training, and drug dog accuracy, at the Canine Training Institute?

Drug dog success rates in training and on the streets are available. Most agencies maintain training logs and search logs reflecting the accuracy of anti drug dogs. The dog does not need to graduate at the top of the class to hit the streets of America. Even where a dog trained by the Canine Training Institute (CTI) is merely a "lucky dog" with a less than perfect accuracy rate, police continue to use the animals. Dog trainers at CTI  do not calculate class rank and a dog in Illinois, who would have been at the bottom of his class (if the Institute had rated performance) has been supported by both law enforcement officers, prosecutors, trial courts, and federal appeals courts. Police drug dogs continue to be the subject of both state and federal court review.  The training and testing consists of "simulated vehicle searches. . . . . [With rewards] every time the dog alerts in the field. Presumably the dog knows he will get a “giftee” (a rubber hose stuffed with a sock) every time he alerts."

How does the United States Supreme Court rule on Drug detection dogs?

The United States Supreme Court’s decision is Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050 (2013). That case overruled Florida's checklist for reviewing canine search accuracy claims by defendants. A summary of the Harris case in the Florida Supreme Court is here: http://www.drug2go.com/2012/03/drug-defense-attorney-drug-dog-sniffs.html . 

In that case, the Florida Supreme Court noted, "a drug-detection dog has been trained and certified to detect narcotics, standing alone, is not sufficient to demonstrate the reliability of the dog. To demonstrate that an officer has a reasonable basis for believing that an alert by a drug-detection dog is sufficiently reliable to provide probable cause to search, the State must present evidence of the dog's training and certification records, an explanation of the meaning of the particular training and certification, field performance records (including any unverified alerts), and evidence concerning the experience and training of the officer handling the dog, as well as any other objective evidence known to the officer about the dog's reliability."

The standard appears to be, "evidence of a dog’s satisfactory performance in a certification or training program can itself provide sufficient reason to trust his alert." Harris, 133 S. Ct. at 1057

What happened to a Florida Drug Sniffing Dog Search in the United States Supreme Court drug dog Case?

The United States Supreme Court overruled Florida and found that, "Such inaccuracies do not taint records of a dog’s performance in standard training and certification settings, making that performance a better measure of a dog’s reliability. Field records may sometimes be relevant, but the court should evaluate all the evidence and should not prescribe an inflexible set of requirements. " In the Florida case the dog had been trained to detect "methamphetamine, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and ecstasy).

Here is the Ruling in the US Supreme Court on Drug Sniffing Dogs: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-817_5if6.pdf

Drug Dog Sniffs - Bo the Dog Busts his Owner

Drug Dog Sniffs

"evidence of a drug-sniffing dog’s satisfactory performance in a certification or training program, the dog’s alert can provide probable cause to search a vehicle."

Drug Dog Search Update - Breaking news that an unwitting dog helped police bust his owner. The cops were chasing a drug suspect who hid in tall grass. The narcs had noticed the suspect had a dog. For those playing along at home, the dog's name was Bo. Anyhow, when confronted by the police, the man and his faithful companion hit the road. The dog followed his owner. The police lost the track. They noticed the dog was standing nearby. They said, "go get him." That is what Bo the dog did. His owner was found hiding nearby. Good dog? 

2015 Updated Source: http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/01/us/alabama-dog-drug-bust/
Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Weird/wireStory/mans-dog-helps-police-bust-drug-charge-26559491

Also in an update the state of the case law discussed below: One legal source summarized the result of the Supreme Court review of dog sniffs. "When, subject to challenge by the defendant, the police provide evidence of a drug-sniffing dog’s satisfactory performance in a certification or training program, the dog’s alert can provide probable cause to search a vehicle."

Source: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/florida-v-harris/

Tampa Drug Defense Attorney has received an interesting comment on Drug Sniffing Dogs from one of our anonymous sources.

I post the anonymous comment it in its entirety:

"The dog lovers at the United States Supreme Court have once more dissed the dog haters at the Florida Supreme Court (I'm a cat person myself). You may recall that in January the SCOTUS granted cert in Florida v. Jardines, No. 11-564, to decide the question whether a dog sniff at the front door of a suspected grow house by a trained narcotics detection dog is a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause. Starring in Jardines is a drug-sniffing dog named Franky." 

"Today, not content with one Florida drug-sniffing dog case per term, the SCOTUS granted cert in Florida v. Harris, No. 11-817, another drug-sniffing dog case. I am not sure of the exact question presented, but I do know the name of the dog -- Aldo.   In any event, the holding of the Florida Supreme Court to be reviewed is as follows:"

"We hold the fact that a drug-detection dog has been trained and certified to detect narcotics, standing alone, is not sufficient to demonstrate the reliability of the dog. To demonstrate that an officer has a reasonable basis for believing that an alert by a drug-detection dog is sufficiently reliable to provide probable cause to search, the State must present evidence of the dog's training and certification records, an explanation of the meaning of the particular training and certification, field performance records (including any unverified alerts), and evidence concerning the experience and training of the officer handling the dog, as well as any other objective evidence known to the officer about the dog's reliability. The trial court must then assess the reliability of the dog's alert as a basis for probable cause to search the vehicle based on a totality of the circumstances. Because in this case the totality of the circumstances does not support a probable cause determination, the trial court should have granted the motion to suppress. We remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion." 

 Harris v. State, 71 So.3d 756, 775 (Fla. 2011).

UPDATED 2015

The United States Supreme Court overruled Florida and found that, "Such inaccuracies do not taint records of a dog’s performance in standard training and certification settings, making that performance a better measure of a dog’s reliability. Field records may sometimes be relevant, but the court should evaluate all the evidence and should not prescribe an inflexible set of requirements. "

Here is the Ruling in the US Supreme Court on Drug Sniffing Dogs: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-817_5if6.pdf

More on the status of Drug Sniffing Dogs in Court is here:

Drug Dog Accuracy Update

 Drug Dog Sniff Questions? Call Casey at 813-222-2220

Drug Dogs Under Attack in Florida

Search and Seizure

Drug Defense Attorney notes another ruling on Drug Dogs and Sniffs and Vehicles. The Supreme Court bounced charges against a vehicle occupant facing drug charges. Drug Dogs and their handlers are under Attack in Florida again. This case involved a vehicle search where the dog sniffed the door handle of the car, alerted for a drug, and then it became clear that the dog was not even trained for the drug that the cops found in the vehicle.

The Florida Supreme Court ruled in a 44 page ruling that the State must establish probable cause to search interior of vehicle when using a drug-detection dog. The State must demonstrate that the cops had reasonable basis for believing the dog to be reliable. We recently wrote about drug dogs in houses. There is a difference when it comes to vehicle searches.

The Court then addressed how the State must meet that burden. They must present training and certification records, the meaning of the particular training and a certificate for that dog, field records must be introduced to show false positives, and in a recent development, there must be evidence of the experience and training of the officer handling the dog. Proof of training and certification is not enough.

Drug Defense Attorney Lawyer Casey Ebsary has posted the complete Dog Sniff opinion here on Drug2Go.com

Today the Florida Supreme Court held: "We hold the fact that a drug-detection dog has been trained and certified to detect narcotics, standing alone, is not sufficient to demonstrate the reliability of the dog. To demonstrate that an officer has a reasonable basis for believing that an alert by a drug-detection dog is sufficiently reliable to provide probable cause to search, the State must present evidence of the dog‘s training and certification records, an explanation of the meaning of the particular training and certification, field performance records (including any unverified alerts), and evidence concerning the experience and training of the officer handling the dog, as well as any other objective evidence known to the officer about the dog‘s reliability. The trial court must then assess the reliability of the dog‘s alert as a basis for probable cause to search the vehicle based on a totality of the circumstances."

Drug Dog in Your Case? Call Me Toll Free 1-877-793-9290 .


Source: 36 Fla. L. Weekly S163a