Source: https://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=A-17-935&s=NE&d=122635
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:35:48+00:00

Document:
develop a reasonable suspicion that other criminal activity was afoot, the stop was prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete its purpose. Here, however, Sinnett did develop a reasonable suspicion that other criminal activity was afoot. Reasonable suspicion entails some minimal level of objective justification for detention, something more than an inchoate and unparticularized hunch, but less than the level of suspicion required for probable cause. State v. Khalil, 25 Neb. App. 449, 908 N.W.2d 97 (2018). Whether a police officer has a reasonable suspicion based on sufficient articulable facts depends on the totality of the circumstances. Id. Sinnett suspected that there was criminal activity afoot based on numerous factors: the fact that Myles struggled to answer simple questions about his travel plans, the odor of marijuana coming from Myles’ person, Myles’ previous criminal history for possession of marijuana, the lighter with “Stoned” written on it found in Myles’ pocket, Myles’ inconsistent stories, both Myles and Schindler said the other was the driver of the vehicle, and the rental agreement indicating the vehicle was rented for a short duration for one way travel. Given the totality of the circumstances, Sinnett was justified in prolonging the stop to address his suspicions. Myles argues that “Sinnett and Potthoff had already agreed to call in a K-9 officer to conduct a drug sniff of the vehicle before issuing any sort of traffic citation or warning and before determining whether the Georgia concealed carry permit of Myles was valid in Nebraska.” Brief for appellee at 13. He argues that Sinnett admitted at the time the canine unit was requested that there was nothing linking marijuana to the vehicle. But even prior to initially asking Myles to accompany him to his patrol car, Sinnett was suspicious that “something else was occurring” based upon Myles’ hesitant and inconsistent answers and his behavior of continually looking back at Schindler and the vehicle. The initial suspicion based on Myles’ responses and behavior, the detection of the marijuana odor, and the discovery of a weapon justified the decision to have a canine unit at the scene. These discoveries also changed the nature of the traffic stop, requiring further investigation and additional time. As recognized in U.S. v. Peralez, supra, if complications arise during the routine tasks, the vehicle may reasonably be detained for a longer duration than when the stop is strictly routine. Given the additional complications, it was reasonable to expand the scope of the investigation and detain the vehicle for a longer duration. Although Myles contends that Sinnett did not act diligently to discover whether Nebraska had a reciprocity agreement with Georgia, the record does not reflect this. Although approximately 24 minutes elapsed between the time that Sinnett found the weapon and his discovery that Nebraska did not have a reciprocity agreement with Georgia, he continued to conduct his routine traffic stop procedures. This included making multiple trips to Myles’ vehicle to obtain Schindler’s information and the rental agreement, and asking questions of Myles regarding the nature of his trip and his relationship with Schindler. We determine that Sinnett did not unduly prolong the stop by not diligently determining whether Nebraska had reciprocity with Georgia for the concealed weapon permit.
(b) Use of Canine Sniff Once reasonable suspicion to support continued detention of a vehicle is determined, the next question is whether the detention was reasonable in the context of an investigatory stop. State v. Voichahoske, 271 Neb. 64, 709 N.W.2d 659 (2006). Courts consider both the length of the continued detention and the investigative methods employed. Id. A canine sniff is generally considered to be minimally intrusive and there is no rigid time limitation on investigative stops. State v. Howard, 282 Neb. 352, 803 N.W.2d 450 (2011). The focus is on the diligence of the investigating officer and the question is how quickly he requested the canine unit and how quickly the unit was dispatched. Id. At the request of Sinnett, Potthoff called for the canine unit approximately 20 minutes into the traffic stop. At this point, Sinnett was suspicious that “something else was occurring” beyond the illegal stop on the highway. Nothing in the record supports any lack of diligence on the part of Sinnett in requesting the canine unit. In fact, Myles implies that Sinnett requested it before he even had reason to do so. The canine unit arrived and sniffed Myles’ vehicle approximately 3 minutes after Myles was arrested. The Nebraska Supreme Court previously has found that a 15-minute period of time from the conclusion of the traffic stop until the arrival of a drug dog was not unreasonable. State v. Voichahoske, supra. Further, under facts similar to the present case, this Court has determined that a 3-minute delay between the conclusion of a traffic stop and a canine sniff was reasonable. State v. Khalil, supra. Myles’ contention that the stop was impermissibly extended to await a canine sniff is without merit. (c) Alleged Illegal Search Finally, Myles argues that Sinnett searched his vehicle in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by a judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. State v. Konfrst, 251 Neb. 214, 556 N.W.2d 250 (1996). A warrantless search of an automobile by police officers with probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband is permissible under the Fourth Amendment. State v. Konfrst, supra. Generally, the factors supporting an officer’s reasonable suspicion of illegal drug activity, coupled with a well-trained drug detection dog’s positive indication of drugs in a vehicle, give the officer probable cause to search the vehicle. State v. Howard, supra. When the police have probable cause prior to instituting any search, they may search the entire vehicle, including any package, luggage, or container that might reasonably hold the item for which they had probable cause to search. State v. Konfrst, supra. Here, Sinnett had probable cause to search Myles’ vehicle. The canine’s alert on the trunk of Myles’ vehicle, coupled with the factors giving rise to Sinnett’s reasonable suspicion to detain Myles outlined above, gave Sinnett probable cause to search Myles’ vehicle. Further, because Sinnett had probable cause to search the vehicle, he could also search the suitcase in which the marijuana was found. Because we find that Sinnett had probable cause to search Myles’ vehicle, we do not address Myles’ argument that his vehicle could not be searched as a search incident to arrest.
Finding no merit to any of Myles’ arguments with respect to the Fourth Amendment, we conclude that the district court properly denied his motion to suppress. (2) SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE Myles’ second assigned error is that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of possession of the marijuana and firearm because the evidence should have been suppressed. Because we find that the district court properly denied his motion to suppress, we find no merit to Myles’ argument. Myles was convicted of numerous charges relating to the possession of the marijuana and firearm found in his vehicle. A person possesses a controlled substance when he or she knows of the nature or character of the substance and of its presence and has dominion and control over it. State v. Rocha, supra. Possession can be either actual or constructive, and constructive possession of an illegal substance may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. Id. The fact that one is the driver of a vehicle, particularly over a long period of time, creates an inference of control over items in the vehicle. State v. Howard, supra. Here, Myles does not dispute that he possessed the marijuana and firearm seized by Sinnett; rather he contests only the lawfulness of the search of his vehicle. Having found the search lawful, we find the resultant evidence sufficient to convict Myles of the numerous charges he faced.
Outcome: Having found that Myles’ Fourth Amendment rights were not violated during the traffic stop, we find no error in the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. The evidence found during the search of his vehicle was sufficient to convict Myles of all charges.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.