D.S.C.: Dog sniff during and early into a routine traffic stop was not unreasonable; it’s de minimus

Dog sniff during and early into a routine traffic stop was not unreasonable. United States v. Garcia-Morales, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11451 (D. S.C. January 30, 2014):

Furthermore, during a routine traffic stop, an officer may conduct a dog sniff of a vehicle “as long as it is performed within the time reasonably required to issue a traffic citation.” United States v. Green, No. 12-4879, 2014 WL 185577, at *5 (4th Cir. Jan. 17, 2014) (emphasis added)(internal citation and quotation marks omitted). In order to prolong the stop beyond the scope of a routine traffic stop, the officer must either have consent or reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. Id. “However, where a delay in conducting a dog sniff can be characterized as de minimis under the totality of the circumstances, the delay does not violate the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.” Id.

The court finds that the K-9 sniff – although occurring outside the scope of the officer’s investigation of the traffic violation – constituted a de minimis intrusion on Defendant’s liberty interest so as to preclude a finding that the officer behaved unreasonably. See United States v. Alexander, 448 F.3d 1014, 1017 (8th Cir. 2006) (“[E]ven if a dog sniff is…two minutes over the line drawn at the end of a routine traffic stop, a two minute delay to conduct a canine sniff is a de minimis intrusion on the driver’s personal liberty that does not violate the Fourth Amendment.”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) (quoted by United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 220 (4th Cir. 2008)).

Therefore, the court finds that Defendant’s detention comported with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment and that suppression of the physical evidence in this case is unwarranted.