Opinion ID: 396604
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Continuing legality of the detention

Text: 13 This circuit has articulated the test for determining the lawfulness of detentions as whether, under the totality of the circumstances, it is reasonable. One of the factors in the assessment of their reasonableness is the extent of the detention. United States v. Richards, 500 F.2d 1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 1974). In Richards, as in this case, the defendants were stopped while on board a private airplane and, due to weather conditions, taken inside the airport terminal building. They were questioned both while on the airstrip and inside the building, and detained for over an hour. The court held that in those particular circumstances, the detention was reasonable. 14 Here, given the initial conclusion by the district court, we are at sea in trying to either apply or distinguish Richards in evaluating the correct length of detention. Based upon counsel's statements at oral argument it would seem that the first sniffing of the luggage by the dog, which established probable cause for arrest, may have occurred as early as 45 minutes after the detention commenced. 5 But we do not know; factual findings are for the district court. Also, the precise time when the lawful detention ripened into an unlawful arrest, if it did so at all, is a question of fact which depends on an evaluation of all the surrounding circumstances. United States v. Richards, 500 F.2d at 1028. Obviously, the length of time of the detention is only one of the various circumstances to be evaluated; so also, is the precise point in time upon entry into the building that appellees disclaimed ownership of the luggage. Since the district court did not make findings as to these facts, we remand for a determination of just when the length of the investigatory stop and how long it continued to be lawful. 15 On remand, the District Court should also evaluate these matters in light of the recent decision of this Court in U. S. v. Martell, 654 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1981). In Martell, this Court refused to suppress evidence obtained from suitcases detained for about 20 minutes before sniffing by a narcotics detector dog revealed the presence of cocaine. Founded suspicion existed justifying the detention, and the suitcases were opened and searched after a warrant was obtained. It was unnecessary to decide lawfullness of detention of the persons in Martell because nothing occurring during the detection, e. g. no interrogation occurred, even if the detention of the persons became unlawful because of its length, it did not contribute to (so as to taint) the search and seizure of the suitcases, 654 F.2d at 1361. On remand, the District Court should also evaluate this aspect, if it concludes that the detention of the appellees became unlawful because of its length.