KS: Waiting to run criminal history check unreasonably extended stop; drug dog used during that time

The stop was unreasonably extended by waiting several minutes to run a criminal history which was not for safety reasons. While the criminal history check was being run, a drug dog was run around the car. The exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture actions. State ex rel. Geary County Sheriff’s Dep’t v. One 2008 Toyota Tundra,2018 Kan. App. LEXIS 10 (Feb. 23, 2018):

Based upon this record, we agree with the district court’s finding that Ricard did not use the criminal history check as a safety precaution within the mission of the traffic stop because this finding is supported by substantial evidence. Ricard’s criminal history check request took place nearly four minutes after the stop. About six minutes then elapsed between Ricard’s criminal history request from dispatch and when dispatch next contacted Ricard. It was during those six minutes that Ricard conducted the dog sniff and during which the dog alerted to the presence of drugs. Ricard’s act of requesting dispatch to conduct a criminal history check, which gave him time to have Scooby perform the dog sniff of the vehicle, is precisely the kind of inquiry that Rodriguez forbids because it morphed the traffic stop into an “[o]n-scene investigation into other crimes” and impermissibly utilized a safety precaution-a criminal history check-to facilitate a detour to a drug investigation. See 135 S. Ct. at 1616.

By the time Ricard requested the criminal history check, he had no safety concerns and he already knew that Stephens’ driver’s license and vehicle checked out. Because a traffic stop seizure must end “when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are-or reasonably should have been-completed[,]“135 S. Ct. at 1614, Ricard was compelled to release Stephens at that point. The time it took for dispatch to conduct a criminal history check, which in turn gave Scooby time to conduct a dog sniff, impermissibly extended the duration of the stop. We agree with the district court’s conclusion that the seizure that occurred during the dog sniff violated the Fourth Amendment, and the evidence must be suppressed.

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.