M.D.Fla.: Running drug dog during sort of long wait for computer check was valid

The defendant’s traffic stop was proper, and it took a while for the computer checks to come back. While waiting, a drug dog was run around the vehicle which alerted, and this was not unreasonable. United States v. Williams, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1673 (M.D. Fla. January 8, 2010)*:

The Court finds that Det. Kirkby and Lt. Hedrick had not received responses from all of their legitimate computer inquiries, and Lt. Hedrick had not completely filled out the written warning notice, until after the drug dog alerted (Doc. # 79, pp. 57-59). Since neither the written warning nor all pending computer record checks had been completed, the Court finds that the legitimate purpose of the traffic stop had not yet been fulfilled at the time the drug dog alerted. United States v. Simms, 385 F.3d 1347, 1353 (11th Cir. 2004). Therefore, the duration of the detention attributable to the traffic stop was approximately 20 to 22 minutes (see Doc. # 108, p. 26), at which point the drug dog’s alert provided probable cause. Under the circumstances of this case, that length of time was not unreasonable.

What about intentionally delayed computer checks, just to facilitate this conduct? Could the officer give a code word to dispatch to “take your time on this so I can run the drug dog”? If so, then reasonableness has been manipulated.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.