D.Minn.: Rodriguez requires separate offense with RS

“Therefore, to extend the stop past this point to deploy his K9 partner, Frizko, even by mere minutes, Trooper Rauenhorst would have needed an additional, separate reasonably articulable factual basis upon which to believe a different offense was in need of further investigation. See Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 353. [¶] No such separate reasonable, articulable suspicion existed here—even considered in their totality.” United States v. Calixtro-Loya, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119700 (D. Minn. May 22, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119306 (D. Minn. July 12, 2023).*

Defendant consented to the dog sniff on the totality. “Defendants are adults, and no one suggests that they were under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the stop. Trooper Rauenhorst asked in a cordial and relaxed manner about the K-9 search. He did not display his weapon, raise his voice, place restraints on Defendants, or promise them anything before receiving Pacheco-Rivera’s consent. Defendants were seated in the car and not under arrest when Pacheco-Rivera consented to the K-9 search, and Trooper Rauenhorst did not ask Defendants to exit the Corolla until after Pacheco-Rivera consented.” United States v. Calixtro-Loya, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119306 (D. Minn. July 12, 2023).*

Officers had probable cause defendant lived where he was found as an absconder. Therefore, standing doesn’t have to be decided. United States v. Mitchell, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119570 (D. Nev. July 12, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.