Defendant\u2019s stop was based on the fact his car was quite similar to the car involved in a string of robberies of convenience stores. The detention lasted 25-30 minutes while officers tried to get pictures of the robbers to the scene so they could be compared. A frisk of the car for a gun led to a drug dog alert, too. Given that this case involved robberies, the police get the discretion to take a little time to determine whether the occupant was involved in them. United States v. Cabey, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13517 (M.D. N.C. February 17, 2010):<\/p>\n
In the present case, the interest in crime prevention and public safety were pressing. Twelve armed robberies of convenience stores occurred within the last month. To Cabey’s bad luck, the vehicle Gerringer observed on the video images only hours earlier stuck in his mind because it was similar to that driven by his girlfriend. Thus, Gerringer testified that he believed Cabey’s vehicle to be the suspect’s car from the August 22 robbery. This was not just a hunch, but was based on detailed, articulable reasons. But because he did not have the photos with him, Gerringer wanted to corroborate his belief and called for them to be delivered to the scene. The stop does not rest solely on the similarities between Cabey’s vehicle and that of the August 22 robbery, however. Here, Gerringer also observed Cabey in conduct consistent with casing a convenience store for a robbery and was aware that the August 22 robbery suspect was dangerous because he used a handgun.<\/p>\n
Thirty to thirty-five minutes elapsed from the initial stop until the August 22 images arrived. Though the exact timing of events was not established, it is clear that Sgt. Velez responded to the scene prior to the canine unit and stated that the images arrived about twenty to twenty-five minutes later. Corporal Edmonds testified that she arrived approximately five minutes after receiving the call to respond and performed the canine sniff prior to the arrival of the images. Thus, the canine sniff providing probable cause occurred sometime within the overall 30 to 35 minute period. This is certainly consistent with the time limits found to be constitutional in other Terry stop cases. See, e.g., Branch, 537 F.3d at 338 (finding 30-minute detention based on traffic stop and subsequent articulable suspicion reasonable); United States v. McFarley, 991 F.2d 1188, 1193-94 (4th Cir. 1993) (finding 38-minute detention in order to arrange for canine sniff not unreasonable); United States v. Manbeck, 744 F.2d 360, 375-76 (4th Cir. 1984) (finding 45-minute to one-hour detention not unreasonable).<\/p>\n
There is no evidence that the delay was any longer than necessary for diligent police officers to pursue the investigation by having the images of the August 22 robbery delivered to the scene. Indeed, the Terry detention was less than that because the discovery of the firearm under the vehicle armrest during the canine sniff provided probable cause for Cabey’s arrest. See McFarley, 991 F.2d at 1193-94. Given the purpose for the detention, law enforcement’s interest in solving the ongoing armed robbery spree, and the need to protect the public, the court finds the delay until the canine sniff disclosed the firearm objectively reasonable based upon the totality of the circumstances.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
[Note: Now, imagine being able to instantly transmit pictures to the patrol car\u2019s computer screen or to the officer\u2019s cell phone by SMS. The police already have the capability. It just doesn\u2019t show in the cases that much.]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading