HI: Dog sniff for a mere traffic violation unreasonable

The car defendant was in was stopped because of a seat belt violation. Defendant was recognized as being involved in drugs, so a drug dog was called out. Using the drug dog for a mere traffic stop was unreasonable without reasonable suspicion. State v. Alvarez, 2016 Haw. LEXIS 156 (June 30, 2016):

In the case at bar, the canine screen that occurred after the traffic stop was an investigatory act aimed specifically at the crimes of dealing or possessing narcotics. Given the complete absence of any reasonable indication that Alvarez’s vehicle contained illegal contraband, the narcotics detection screen had no justifiable connection to the seatbelt violation that warranted the initial detention. Consequently, the request for and initiation of the drug screen in this case was unjustified, and such an action subjected Alvarez to the same kind of “separate, distinct, and unrelated investigation” that this court deemed constitutionally invalid in Estabillio. Id. at 273, 218 P.3d at 761. Lacking sufficient independent grounds to expand the stop into a narcotics investigation, the drug screen was unrelated to the seatbelt infraction. We therefore hold that the canine screen, as conducted under these circumstances, was an unreasonable and unlawful expansion of the initial traffic detention in violation of article 1, section 7 of the Hawai’i Constitution. See Perez, 111 Hawai#i at 397, 142 P.3d at 1044. As such, the evidence against Alvarez obtained as a result of the screen must be suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Estabillio, 121 Hawai#i at 274, 218 P.3d at 761 (quoting State v. Biggar, 68 Haw. 404, 409, 716 P.2d 493, 496 (1986)).

Decided under state constitution alone, but the Fourth Amendment analysis would have been the same. The court of appeals brushed off the argument in an unpublished opinion.