A dog sniff during a routine traffic stop was unreasonable because it extended the stop. Under state case law, the dog sniff had to have some relation to the purpose of the stop or reasonable suspicion developed, and here there was none. Lane v. Commonwealth, 2016 Ky. App. LEXIS 184 (Nov. 4, 2016):
Accordingly, if a dog sniff occurs during a traffic stop, it passes constitutional muster in one of three ways: it is related to the offense for which the person was stopped; it does not extend at all the time it takes to complete the traffic stop; or, it is premised on probable cause or a reasonable articulable suspicion of drug-related activity. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Bucalo, 422 S.W.3d 253 (Ky. 2013).
In the instant case, Lane was stopped because he allegedly failed to yield at a stop sign. Running the drug dog around the vehicle was in no way related to the purpose for which Lane was stopped. Thus, the first prong fails.
The second prong also fails because running the drug dog prolonged the traffic stop for at least some period of time. Officer Merrick could have been attending to the “ordinary inquiries” — i.e., running Lane’s license and registration — or he could have been writing the traffic violation ticket during the time that he was having K9 Bowie sniff the vehicle. See Rodriguez, 135 S.Ct. at 1616, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (“If an officer can complete traffic-based inquiries expeditiously, then that is the amount of ‘time reasonably required to complete [the stop’s] mission.'”) (quoting Caballes, 543 U.S. at 407, 125 S.Ct. 834). Indeed, the Commonwealth’s argument that “the sniff did not prolong the stop at all because it only took a few seconds[,]” Appellee’s Brf. at 7, demonstrates the de minimis principle was violated. It does not matter that the sniff took a few seconds or a few minutes — that the dog sniff prolonged the traffic stop any amount of time violated Lane’s constitutional rights. Accordingly, as the sniff was not related to the offense for which Lane was stopped, and it impermissibly prolonged the traffic stop, it was only permissible if there was probable cause or a reasonable articulable suspicion of drug-related activity.
Here, we find there was no reasonable articulable suspicion of drug-related activity justifying the dog sniff. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). The Commonwealth argues reasonable articulable suspicion of drug-related activity existed because the officers testified that Lane might have been fumbling with drugs as they were approaching the vehicle. Furthermore, the officers were in a “high-crime neighborhood” and had a “hunch” or bad feeling about Lane.
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't."
“I am still learning.”
—Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500's)).
"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud
"It is a pleasant world we live in, sir, a very pleasant world. There are bad people in it, Mr. Richard, but if there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers."
—Charles Dickens, “The Old Curiosity Shop ... With a Frontispiece. From a Painting by Geo. Cattermole, Etc.” 255 (1848)
"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced."
v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold,
J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).
"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws,
or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence." —Mapp
v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).
"Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment."
—Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).
"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that
bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the
police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater
than it is today."
v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their
v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)
"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have
frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And
so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his
case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth
States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated
here, has not–to put it mildly–run smooth."
v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the
bottom of a turntable."
v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)
"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly
exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth
Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in
an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."
v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
“Experience should teach us to be most on guard to
protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born
to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded
rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men
of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
“Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted
intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by
government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose
it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.”
States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)
"You can't always get what you want /
But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need."
—Mick Jagger & Keith Richards
"In Germany, they first came for the communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for
the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came
for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration
“You know, most men would get discouraged by
now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!”
---Pepé Le Pew
"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers,
is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which
reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that
those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being
judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting
v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)