IL: Calling for a drug dog after defendant refused to consent to a search did not extend the stop even “incrementally”

Calling for a drug dog after defendant refused to consent to a search did not extend the stop even “incrementally” [ignoring the fact that the radio call took time away from writing the ticket]. People v. Heritsch, 2017 IL App (2d) 151157, 2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 800 (Dec. 20, 2017):

[*P18] We note that, based on Zapf’s description of the tasks involved in writing a citation and the time required to complete those tasks, the time spent writing the citation here does not appear to be unreasonable. The trial court found that Zapf was working at a “normal pace” and was not “dragging his feet just to wait for [the] dog.” This finding is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Tasks unrelated to the mission of the stop added very little time—perhaps a minute—to the process, but roughly the same amount of time appears to have passed from the point when Bosco detected drugs in defendant’s vehicle until Zapf completed writing the citation. And Zapf had yet to deliver the ticket to defendant, which would have taken some additional time. Thus, as in Reedy, the evidence does not show that, but for activities unrelated to the mission of the stop, Zapf would have finished writing the ticket and would have delivered it to defendant before Bosco detected drugs in defendant’s vehicle. Accordingly, we conclude that the activities unrelated to the mission of the stop did not prolong the stop; they did not cause the stop to extend beyond the point at which Bosco’s detection of drugs provided probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained drugs. See People v. Neuberger, 2011 IL App (2d) 100379, ¶ 9, 959 N.E.2d 195, 355 Ill. Dec. 167.