ID: Two brief calls to inquire about the location of drug dog didn’t constitute abandonment of the stop for investigation

Two brief calls during the traffic stop to inquire about a drug dog were not themselves abandonment of the stop in favor of the dog. It was reasonable at the time and didn’t extend the stop. State v. Still, 2019 Ida. App. LEXIS 30 (Aug. 30, 2019):

Turning to the case at hand, the pertinent findings are as follows: Officer Clark engaged in a lawful traffic stop, and while acquiring Still’s documentation, radioed to request a drug-dog unit. After not receiving a response to his initial radio call, Officer Clark walked back to his patrol vehicle, sat down, and took ten seconds to make a second radio call to a drug-dog officer. Based on those facts, Still contends that the officer’s second phone call to inquire if a drug-dog unit was available constitutes a Rodriguez abandonment. Thus, the sole question before this Court is whether a radio call to inquire if a drug-dog unit is available constitutes an abandonment of the traffic mission so as to amount to an unlawful extension of Still’s traffic stop.

We conclude that a radio call to inquire if a drug dog is available does not constitute a Rodriguez abandonment. For that reason, this case is distinguishable from Rodriguez and Linze.

Officer Clark did not abandon the purpose of the traffic stop to engage in a separate criminal investigation. Unlike Officer Clark’s radio call, abandonment occurred in Rodriguez and Linze when officers converted the traffic stops into drug investigations by engaging in drug-dog sniffs unsupported by reasonable suspicion. Unlike the defendants in Rodriguez and Linze who challenged the officers’ conduct in relation to the drug-dog sniff, Still challenges the radio call to the drug-dog officer. However, Rodriguez does not prohibit all conduct that in any way slows the officer from completing the stop as fast as humanly possible. It prohibits abandoning the stop to investigate other crimes. The Rodriguez Court took issue with the investigation (i.e. the drug-dog sniff) itself. See Rodriguez, __ U.S. __, 135 S. Ct 1609, 191 L. Ed. 2d 492. Here, Officer Clark was not conducting a drug-dog sniff, taking safety measures aimed at conducting a drug-dog sniff, or engaging in any other alternate investigation. At most, a radio call to inquire if a drug-dog unit is available is a precursor to an alternate investigation. Although the call may (or may not) result in an alternate investigation which may or may not pass constitutional muster, the call itself does not amount to a Fourth Amendment violation.