OH12: RS for DUI doesn’t support calling drug dog; new RS needed for that

Defendant was pulled over for having no rear bumper. Reasonable suspicion developed for DUI based on the smell of alcohol, but when the officer called for a drug dog, he needed separate reasonable suspicion for that. The first detention and reasonable suspicion didn’t support that. State v. Casey, 2014-Ohio-2586, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 2536 (12th Dist. June 16, 2014):

[*P20] However, “if the circumstances give rise to a reasonable suspicion of some other illegal activity, different than that which triggered the stop, then the officer may detain the driver for as long as the new articulable reasonable suspicion exists.” State v. Elliott, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 11 MA 182, 2012-Ohio-3350, ¶ 18, citing State v. Myers, 63 Ohio App.3d 765, 771, 580 N.E.2d 61 (2d Dist.1990); Grenoble at ¶ 29. The existence of reasonable and articulable suspicion is determined by evaluating the totality of the circumstances “through the eyes of the reasonable and prudent police officer on the scene who must react to events as they unfold.” State v. Popp, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2010-05-128, 2011-Ohio-791, ¶ 13; see also State v. Batchili, 113 Ohio St.3d 403, 2007-Ohio-2204, ¶ 13, 865 N.E.2d 1282.

. . .

[*P24] Based on our review, we conclude that Officer Christian did not have new articulable reasonable suspicion to continue appellant’s detention following the completion of the field sobriety tests and therefore the trial court should have granted appellant’s motion to suppress. Although Officer Christian’s initial reasons for the traffic stop were lawful, i.e., for appellant’s rear bumper in violation of R.C. 4513.021 and then to investigate whether appellant was driving while intoxicated in violation of R.C. 4511.19, HN7Go to the description of this Headnote.”the initial lawfulness of a traffic stop will not support a ‘fishing expedition’ for evidence of a crime.” Elliott, 2012-Ohio-3350 at ¶ 27.

[*P25] Here, Officer Christian’s testimony clearly indicates that appellant’s continued detention was not based on the amount of time needed to effectuate a traffic stop. Rather, the testimony presented at the suppression hearing indicates that appellant was detained following the completion of the field sobriety tests, so that Officer Christian could determine whether appellant had guns or drugs in the vehicle. In other words, Officer Christian’s testimony makes clear that appellant’s continued detention was not based on the original purpose of the traffic stop for the bumper violation under R.C. 4513.021 or to issue a citation for that infraction.