D.Utah: Using drug dog while waiting for call back from dispatch was reasonable; didn’t prolong the stop

During the eight minutes of a normal traffic stop, the use of a drug dog by the officer while waiting for word back from dispatch was reasonable. United States v. Guzman-Cruz, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3312 (D. Utah January 11, 2015). Essentially, a drug dog can be used in any traffic stop while dispatch conveniently takes their time in getting back to the officer with the dog? This is too easily manipulated to seriously be the law. Defense counsel: be vigilant and don’t give up on these arguments.

The officer heard a sound and looked toward defendant’s car, thinking defendant had hit something. There was no evidence or observation of an accident. The defendant’s stop based on the sound was without reasonable suspicion. “Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the preponderance of the evidence presented at the hearing does not support the judgment of the trial court. Accordingly, we hold that as a matter of law there was no reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant-Appellant.” State v. Yacks, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 25 (January 13, 2015).*

Since the court finds that defendant was not in “custody” for Miranda purposes, the fruit of the poisonous tree argument necessarily fails. United States v. Lowe, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4804 (E.D. Mich. January 15, 2015).*