Opinion ID: 2600016
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the officers improperly extended mr. baker's detention after they finished processing the driver's arrest

Text: ¶ 10 The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, houses, papers, and effects by the government. U.S. Const. amend IV. [T]he `touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness,' which is measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances. Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39, 117 S.Ct. 417, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996) (quoting Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 250, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991)); see also Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977). Reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment depends `on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.' State v. Warren, 2003 UT 36, ¶ 31, 78 P.3d 590 (quoting United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975)). ¶ 11 Although police must have a warrant to conduct most searches and seizures, officers may temporarily detain a vehicle and its occupants upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity for the purpose of conducting a limited investigation of the suspicion. State v. James, 2000 UT 80, ¶ 10, 13 P.3d 576. This automobile exception to the warrant rule arises because occupants of a vehicle have a lesser expectation of privacy [d]ue to the mobile nature of vehicles and their highly regulated status. Id. But `one does not lose the protection of the Fourth Amendment while in an automobile.' State v. Lopez, 873 P.2d 1127, 1131 (Utah 1994) (quoting State v. Schlosser, 774 P.2d 1132, 1135 (Utah 1989)). ¶ 12 We apply a two-step test to determine whether a traffic stop is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. State v. Applegate, 2008 UT 63, ¶ 9, 194 P.3d 925. The first step is to determine whether `the police officer's action [was] justified at its inception.' In the second step, we must determine whether the detention following the stop was `reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference in the first place.' Id. (quoting State v. Lopez, 873 P.2d at 1131-32) (alternation in original); see also Lopez, 873 P.2d at 1134 (holding that an officer can run a warrant check on a car during a legal traffic stop if doing so does not significantly extend[ ] the period of detention beyond that reasonably necessary to request defendant's license and registration and to issue a citation). ¶ 13 During a lawful traffic stop, [t]he temporary seizure of driver and passengers ordinarily continues, and remains reasonable, for the duration of the stop. Arizona v. Johnson, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 129 S.Ct. 781, 788, 172 L.Ed.2d 694 (2009). If, during the scope of the traffic stop, the officer forms new reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity, the officer may also expediently investigate his new suspicion. See id. at 787. But without additional reasonable suspicion, the officer must allow the seized person to depart once the purpose of the stop has concluded. State v. Hansen, 2002 UT 125, ¶ 31, 63 P.3d 650; see also State v. Bissegger, 2003 UT App 256, ¶ 20, 76 P.3d 178 (finding that requesting permission to search a car after the driver successfully completed a field sobriety test exceeded the scope of the initial stop). ¶ 14 In this case, Officer Robertson was justified at the inception of the stop to detain the vehicle to investigate the broken taillight. See Lopez, 873 P.2d at 1132 ([A] police officer is constitutionally justified in stopping a vehicle if the stop is incident to a traffic violation committed in the officers' presence. (internal quotation marks omitted)). However, the reasonableness of Mr. Baker's detention fails under the second prong. We first hold that the purpose of the stop concluded when the officers finished processing the arrest. We then hold that the drug dog sniff that occurred after the purposes of the stop had been completed violated Mr. Baker's Fourth Amendment rights.