OR: Telling def he had to stay with the car while the drug dog came was based on reasonable suspicion

Quick entry and exit of a house under surveillance for drug sales led to police following defendant’s car. Furtive movements occurred inside, and defendant delayed stopping the car until those movements stopped. All that was reasonable suspicion to detain for a drug dog. Telling defendant he couldn’t leave while the dog was coming wasn’t unreasonable. State v. Barber, 279 Ore. App. 84, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 786 (June 22, 2016).

Defendant consented to the initial search on the highway, and that revealed evidence of tampering with the car. That gave reasonable suspicion to continue the stop longer, and even to move the car to a garage. Defendant’s argument that he withdrew consent when asked about going to the garage is thus ineffective. There a dog alerted on the car. United States v. Padilla, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81777 (E.D.Ark. June 23, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.