CA8: 8 minute delay in deploying drug dog already there was de minimus

“Although the dog was located in the patrol car, Struble waited to employ it until a second officer arrived, explaining that he did so for his safety because there were two persons in Rodriguez’s vehicle. The resulting seven- or eight-minute delay is similar to the delay that we have found to be reasonable in other circumstances. See Morgan, 270 F.3d at 632 (‘We do not believe that the few minutes difference between the time in this case and $404,905 [2 minutes] has constitutional significance.’). We thus conclude that it constituted a de minimis intrusion on Rodriguez’s personal liberty.” United States v. Rodriguez, 741 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 2014). [Since I practice in the Eighth Circuit, I call $404,905‘s de minimus rule “Loken’s revenge” against the Fourth Amendment. Reportedly he hoped this case would help him get to SCOTUS with his friend Alito. Whether that’s really true, I have no idea.]

The stop was justified by a traffic offense, and the consent was voluntary. United States v. Sifuentes-Botello, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184525 (M.D. Fla. December 17, 2013).*

The stop was reasonable for following too close. “The facts that evolved during the course of the stop, then, gave rise to reasonable suspicion that Mr. Pittman was involved in illegal activity regardless of whether Officer Stein should reasonably have completed the citation process earlier in the stop. In such circumstances, the Tenth Circuit has routinely upheld detentions that stretch well beyond the time required to run a license check and write a citation.” United States v. Pittman, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11809 (D. Kan. January 31, 2014).*