D.Kan.: LPN being unassigned was justification for a stop and then the use of a drug dog wasn’t unreasonable

Defendant’s stop was based on the LPN coming back “not assigned,” and then the officer smelled alcohol on him. The use of the drug dog during all this did not extend the stop and was not unreasonable. United States v. McGreevy, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107307 (D.Kan. August 14, 2015):

Here, defendant was stopped because Deputy Lord determined that his license plate violated Kansas vehicle registration laws. Thus, the stop was justified at its inception. Lord then observed an odor of alcohol on defendant, who admitted that he had been drinking. This information provided reasonable suspicion that defendant was driving while intoxicated or drinking while driving. Lord’s reasonable suspicion of driving while intoxicated justified the field sobriety test and the time [*9] required to perform it. Lord then ran the vehicle registration, as is permitted during a routine traffic stop. Any extended time required to investigate the vehicle registration issue was warranted because Lord checked several databases in an effort to determine why defendant’s license plate was “not assigned.”

B. The Drug Dog “Walk-Around”

“It is well settled that a drug dog’s sniff outside of a car is not itself a search” under the Fourth Amendment and needs no probable cause justification. United States v. Ludwig, 641 F.3d 1243, 1250 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 409 (2005)). Thus, no warrant or warrant exception was required to walk the drug dog around defendant’s car. Further, the drug dog sniff had no effect on the scope of the detention because it was performed during the registration check and did not extend the duration of the stop. The drug dog sniff did not violate the Fourth Amendment.