N.D.Ind.: The Rodriguez question is: Did the use of the dog prolong the stop

“The answer to this question doesn’t hinge on ‘whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket’ but whether the dog sniff ‘prolongs’ the stop. [Rodriguez] at 357. The answer today is undoubtedly no. Deputy Samuelson, a credibly precise witness, testified that much of any time eaten up in the (at most) nine-minute encounter-and only six minutes from engagement with the driver to the canine’s alert-was attending to safety concerns, waiting for the driver to find the rental agreement, awaiting license or Illinois fleet plate return, going back and forth from the vehicles initially and later for the registration, and then completing the warning ticket. The deputy even worked around the delay occasioned by the Illinois fleet return rather than hold up the stop. That displayed diligence, not delay.” United States v. Devalois, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194889 (N.D.Ind. Oct. 8, 2021).*

The validity of the traffic stop was uncontested, and it led to a plain view of drugs which led to an automobile exception search. People v. Brown, 2021 NY Slip Op 05433, 2021 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5556 (4th Dept. Oct. 8, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, Dog sniff. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.