Dog alert on car did not translate into reason to pat down the driver

A dog sniff must be accomplished within the time of the normal license check or with reasonable suspicion to be valid. Here it was timely. The dog alert on the car, however, did not automatically translate into reason to pat down the driver. State v. Harris, 280 S.W.3d 832 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008):

Probable cause to search the car at that point, however, did not in and of itself justify Officer Kilpatrick in searching the defendant’s person. We acknowledge that probable cause to search a vehicle generally authorizes the officer to search “passengers’ belongings found in the car that are capable of concealing the object of the search.” Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 307, 119 S. Ct. 1297, 1304 (1999). We know of no broad application of the vehicle search exception to the warrant requirement, however, that underwrites the search of a person who occupied the vehicle prior to the dog sniff. See United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 68 S. Ct. 222 (1948) (stating that probable cause to search a vehicle did not authorize a body search of a passenger); see also Houghton at 303, 119 S. Ct. at 1302 (mentioning Di Re with approval). In the present case, an extension of the vehicle search exception is especially inapt for two reasons. First, the defendant left the vehicle before the police acquired any indication that the vehicle contained material that they would be entitled to seize; the dog apparently did not react to any substances secluded on the defendant’s person. Second, a passenger in the vehicle occupied the seat near the door where the dog reacted. Under these circumstances, we fail to see how the officer’s ultimate, warrantless search of the defendant was justified by constitutional principles governing vehicle searches. See Houghton, at 302 n. 1, 119 S. Ct. at 1302, n. 1 (clarifying that the Di Re rule was predicated upon the situs of the search (“search of person” versus “search of property”) and that the role of a vehicle’s occupant (driver versus passenger) was immaterial).

A citizen informant is presumed reliable under Tennessee’s Aguilar-Spinelli standard. State v. Richards, 2008 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 111 (February 6, 2008).*

Officers had probable cause for arresting plaintiff so his § 1983 case fails. Tensley v. City of Spokane, 267 Fed. Appx. 558 (9th Cir. 2008) (unpublished).*

Officer determined that there was a warrant out for the owner of a car he saw at a motel parking lot. He attempted to talk to the man leaning against it who matched the description of the owner, but the man walked into the motel lobby. The officer followed and determined that the man was not the owner, but reasonable suspicion developed anyway. The initial contact was not a seizure, but it ripened into one supported by reasonable suspicion. Manigault v. State, 881 N.E.2d 679 (Ind. App. 2008).*