Opinion ID: 3008597
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Unreasonably Prolonged Traffic Stops

Text: That dog sniffs are not per se unconstitutional, however, does not end the inquiry in this case . Though dog sniffs are not considered searches that would implicate the Appellant's Fourth Amendment rights, because he was detained (that is, seized), his claim can still succeed if he can show that the detention itself was otherwise unreasonable. In Caballes , the United States Supreme Court addressed a situation factually similarly to this case. While one officer was writing a warning ticket, another officer walked the narcotics-detection dog around the car . The dog alerted at the trunk, the officers searched it and found marijuana, and they arrested the respondent. The entire incident lasted less than ten minutes, and the Court accept[ed] the state court's conclusion that the duration of the stop in th[at] case was entirely justified by the traffic offense and the ordinary inquiries incident to such a stop. Caballes, 543 U.S. at 408. Despite its conclusion that in general a dog sniff is a permissible search, however, the Court noted that [i]t is nevertheless clear that a seizure that is lawful at its inception can violate the Fourth Amendment if its manner of execution unreasonably infringes interests protected by the Constitution . Id. at 407 . A seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission. Id. In such a case, the subsequent discovery of contraband is the product of an unconstitutional seizure. Id . a t 408. The Court of Appeals adhered to Caballes and addressed the issue of unreasonable delay during a traffic stop in Johnson v. Commonwealth, 179 S.W.3d 882 (Ky. App . 2005) . The facts in Johnson were also similar to those in this case, except that in Johnson, the narcotics-detection dog arrived and Johnson was asked to step out of his car within five to seven minutes of the initial traffic stop, and the entire detention took only fifteen minutes . As in this case, the defendant objected to the scope and duration of the detention that allowed for the dog sniff. Id. at 885 . But the court rejected that argument, agreeing instead with the trial court's conclusion that the brief period of detention lasted no longer than was necessary to achieve the purpose of the sfop. Id. The court approved the principle that an `investigative detention must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop .' Id, at 884 (quoting Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S . 491, 500 (1983)) . Consistent with Caballes, the court explained : We have examined the record and find nothing to indicate that the duration of Johnson's detention was so prolonged as to be unjustified . Officer Roush appears to have pursued his investigation in a diligent and reasonable manner . He made a radio transmission to dispatch, awaited information, then contacted the canine unit. His encounter with Johnson was focused and immediate, and he set out directly to complete the paperwork involved in issuing a citation . The purpose of the initial stop had not been completed before the canine unit arrived at the scene, and the dog sniff did not prolong the stop to any unreasonable extent . The dog sniff occurred while Johnson was being lawfully detained by Roush. After the dog alerted to the presence of narcotics, the officers undoubtedly had probable cause to search the vehicle . Consequently, the trial court did not err by denying Johnson's motion to suppress the evidence recovered from his car. Id . at 885-86 . The court simply held that under the facts of that case, the length of the stop was not unreasonably prolonged . Though this Court is not bound by the decision of the Court of Appeals in Johnson , the case is instructive and is an accurate analysis of the law as announced in Caballes. In contrast to Johnson , however, the uncontested testimony from the suppression hearing in this case shows that the delay was far longer. Here, fifteen minutes elapsed from the initial stop until the drug dog arrived. Officer Burgess testified that it then took thirty to forty minutes to complete the dog sniff. He also testified that he was working on Kelly's citation while he waited for the drug dog to arrive. However, the citation was not given to Kelly until after the dog arrived and searched the exterior and interior of the vehicle, nearly an hour after the initial stop . The second pat down of the Appellant did not take place until after the completed dog sniff. The entire incident from the initial stop until the arrest of the Appellant took 90 minutes. In Meghoo v. Commonwealth , 245 S .W.3d 752 (Ky . 2008), this Court addressed the issue of unreasonable delay during a safety inspection at a weigh station. A safety inspection of Meghoo's truck and paperwork at a weigh station revealed that his logbook was misdated and his bills of lading were suspiciously handwritten, since bills of lading nowadays are generally computer generated . Id. a t 753 . The vehicle enforcement officer gave Meghoo a chance to correct his logbook, and the proffered corrections actually resulted in further discrepancies . As the officer continued to investigate the discrepancies, he called for a canine unit. The dog alerted at the trailer doors and then started to tear open a box within the trailer. The box contained approximately forty pounds of marijuana covered in fabric softener sheets to mask the odor. Once the vehicle enforcement officers established a reasonable suspicion based on the documents that other violations of law might be occurring, they were entitled to bring in the drug-sniffing dog for the exterior of the vehicle so long as there was not any unreasonable delay. Id . at 755 (citing Caballes , 543 U.S . at 407) . The officers were entitled to conduct an investigation `reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference in the first place .' Id. (quoting United States v. Bloomfield, 40 F.3d 910, 915 (8th Cir. 1994)) . This Court first found that based on the reasons for the inspections and what the officers found, continuing the investigation into what the Appellant was carrying was reasonable in scope. Id . a t 756 . As for the issue of unreasonable delay, the record showed that the safety inspection took nearly thirty minutes, the search of the vehicle with the dog began about twenty minutes after the safety inspection ended, and Meghoo was arrested about seven minutes after the search of the vehicle with the drug dog began. The officers' inspection and investigation thus lasted about an hour. However, given the discrepancies in the logbooks, the vehicle enforcement officers were authorized to declare the vehicle `out of service' and Appellant unable to drive it for 24 hours. Id . at 756 (citing KRS 281 .600; 601 KAR 1 :005). Pursuant to that regulation, Meghoo would not have been allowed to leave in his truck. This Court concluded that such a regulation mitigates any claim of unreasonableness as to the length of the detention, since this is not a case in which Appellant could have driven away but for the officers' actions. Id . Also, Meghoo involved a regulatory safety inspection at a weigh station, not a traffic stop on the side of the road. The heavier regulation of the commercial trucking industry is part of the reason the officers in Meghoo were authorized to effectively impound the truck for twenty-four hours . Such a regulatory scheme, and voluntary participation in the regulated industry, tends to weigh heavily in favor of finding longer stops to be reasonable . Traffic stops of private passenger vehicles, which are entitled to a greater expectation of privacy to begin with, should almost always be shorter because they involve minor traffic violations, and do not fall under a broad regulatory scheme requiring an inspection (with which commercial drivers must comply in addition to those general traffic laws that private drivers must follow) . Finally, the delay was shorter in Meghoo . Though it was about the same length of time before the drug dog arrived, the entire encounter with the officers in Meghoo lasted about an hour (including thirty minutes for the safety inspection), much of which was due to the fact that the truck had failed the safety inspection . In the present case, however, it was an hour before the second pat down and arrest of the Appellant, and the entire encounter with officers lasted about 90 minutes . The stop of a private passenger vehicle for a minor traffic offense, without more, cannot reasonably take longer than the 10 regulatory stop of a commercial truck. That the stop in this case actually exceeded that in Me hoo illustrates why the stop in this case was unreasonable . Given that the length of the delay in Meghoo was shorter and involved a failed safety inspection at a weigh station causing the vehicle to be declared out of service, as opposed to a routine traffic stop, Meghoo is not controlling. Even though Meghoo was a relatively lengthy delay, this Court's conclusion that it was not an unreasonable delay in that case does not compel the same result in this case. As previously noted, a seizure that is lawful at its inception can violate the Fourth Amendment if its manner of execution unreasonably infringes interests protected by the Constitution . Caballes, 543 U.S. at 407 . Contrary to the situation in Caballes , this Court cannot accept the . . . conclusion that the duration of the stop in this case was entirely justified by the traffic offense and the ordinary inquiries incident to such a stop. Id. at 408 . Instead, this is an example of the scenario foreseen in Caballes, that a seizure can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission . Id . a t 407 . Simply put, the scope and duration of the stop in this case-fifteen minutes before the narcotics-detection dog arrived, thirty to forty more minutes for the dog to search the car, one hour before the driver was given a citation, and 90 minutes of total detention before the Appellant-passenger was arrested-exceeded that allowed for a mere traffic offense . The stop, therefore, was unreasonable and so prolonged as to be unjustified. Johnson, 179 S.W.3d at 884. Despite the Commonwealth's contention, the choice to tow the vehicle did not lengthen the permissible duration of the detention because regardless of how much time it might take for a tow truck to arrive, the actual seizure and search had to be completed within a reasonable time . The Commonwealth's arguments regarding de minimis intrusions on Fourth Amendment protections and inevitable discovery are without merit . As such, the subsequent discovery of crack-cocaine on the Appellant was the product of an unconstitutional seizure, and the evidence should have been suppressed .