Opinion ID: 1873533
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Duration of the dog sniff

Text: ¶ 26 Before discussing the general legal principles that may be applied, or the parties' positions in regard to whether the detention satisfies the constitutional standard of reasonableness, we must first resolve one predicate issue: By how much time did the dog sniff extend the traffic stop? Arias contends that the circuit court's conclusion that D'Jango's sniff prolonged the stop by approximately 38 minutes is not clearly erroneous; and therefore, the dog sniff unreasonably prolonged his seizure. In contrast, the State argues that the circuit court's finding with regard to the extension of the stop is clearly erroneous. The State maintains that it was not the dog sniff that extended the stop, but rather the probable cause of drug activity, which the dog sniff generated, that extended the stop. Accordingly, the State contends that the actual time spent on the dog sniff is 78 seconds, because that is the time that elapsed between Rennie's question to Schillinger about whether the car contained drugs and the conclusion of D'Jango's sniff. The State supports its contention that the 78 seconds is the proper focus by emphasizing that the court of appeals, in certifying the case, identified 78 seconds as the time for us to consider. ¶ 27 The circuit court's finding that the dog sniff prolonged Schillinger and Arias's detention by approximately 38 minutes is clearly erroneous. Thirty-eight minutes was the approximate amount of time that elapsed from the conclusion of D'Jango's sniff to Arias's arrest. We conclude that it is against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence to find, as it appears the circuit court did, that the 38-minute interval is attributable to the time it took to complete the dog sniff. The 38 minutes that Schillinger and Arias were detained following the dog sniff was occupied by Rennie's search of the vehicle, his pat-down searches of Arias and Schillinger and the activities flowing from the vehicle search. It was those activities, not the dog sniff, that extended the detention by approximately 38 minutes. ¶ 28 For example, when Rennie saw that D'Jango had alerted to Schillinger's vehicle, he concluded that he had probable cause to search the vehicle and its occupants. [7] Rennie first instructed Arias to exit the vehicle, and then he conducted a pat-down search of Arias. He applied the same process with Schillinger. He then searched the vehicle, finding cocaine and a switchblade knife inside. The discovery of contraband precipitated Arias's arrest. It is these activities, not the dog sniff, that occupied the latter 38 minutes of the detainment. [8] Accordingly, it was clearly erroneous for the circuit court to find that the dog sniff prolonged the detention by 38 minutes. Therefore, we consider the 78-second extension of Arias's detention in deciding whether Rennie's controlled substance investigation was reasonable under all the circumstances. Terry, 392 U.S. at 19, 88 S.Ct. 1868; Griffith, 236 Wis.2d 48, ¶ 38, 613 N.W.2d 72.