SCOTUS grants cert. on dog sniff after stop should be complete; the Eighth Circuit’s de minimus rule

Rodriguez v. United States, 13-9972, cert. granted October 2, 2014 (ScotusBlog). Question presented:

This Court has held that, during an otherwise lawful traffic stop, asking a driver to exit a vehicle, conducting a drug sniff with a trained canine, or asking a few off-topic questions are “de minimis” intrusions on personal liberty that do not require reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in order to comport with the Fourth Amendment. This case poses the question of whether the same rule applies after the conclusion of the traffic stop, so that an officer may extend the already-completed stop for a canine sniff without reasonable suspicion or other lawful justification.

Opinion below: United States v. Rodriguez, 741 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 2014). The holding below:

As set forth above, Rodriguez was charged with possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The district court denied Rodriguez’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that the delay caused by the dog sniff did not violate Rodriguez’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures. On appeal, Rodriguez argues that his motion should have been granted because the stop was unreasonably prolonged by the dog sniff in the absence of reasonable suspicion to continue his detention. Rodriguez does not challenge the validity of the initial stop.

“[A] dog sniff conducted during a traffic stop that is ‘lawful at its inception and otherwise executed in a reasonable manner’ does not infringe upon a constitutionally protected interest in privacy.” United States v. Martin, 411 F.3d 998, 1002 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 408 (2005)). We have held that once an “officer decides to let a routine traffic offender depart with a ticket, a warning, or an all clear[,] … the Fourth Amendment applies to limit any subsequent detention or search.” United States v. $404,905.00 in U.S. Currency, 182 F.3d 643, 648 (8th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, a dog sniff may be the product of an unconstitutional seizure, “if the traffic stop is unreasonably prolonged before the dog is employed.” Martin, 411 F.3d at 1002 (citing Caballes, 543 U.S. at 407). A brief delay to employ a dog does not unreasonably prolong the stop, however, and we have repeatedly upheld dog sniffs that were conducted minutes after the traffic stop concluded. See, e.g., United States v. Alexander, 448 F.3d 1014, 1017 (8th Cir. 2006) (four-minute delay upheld as a de minimis intrusion on personal liberty); Martin, 411 F.3d at 1002 (two-minute delay upheld); United States v. Morgan, 270 F.3d 625, 632 (8th Cir. 2001) (delay of “well under ten minutes” upheld); $404,905.00 in U.S. Currency, 182 F.3d at 649 (two minute delay upheld).

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 has constitutional significance.”). We thus conclude that it constituted a de minimis intrusion on Rodriguez’s personal liberty.

In light of our conclusion that the traffic stop was not unreasonably prolonged, we need not decide whether Struble had reasonable suspicion to continue Rodriguez’s detention. The order denying the motion to suppress is affirmed.