{"id":4976,"date":"2012-02-03T07:01:41","date_gmt":"2010-12-09T09:09:36","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-12-09T09:09:36","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4976","title":{"rendered":"AR: Officer\u2019s stall in handing over traffic ticket to allow the drug dog to get there made the stop unreasonable [but reversed on pet. for rev. on RS]"},"content":{"rendered":"

Officer\u2019s stall in handing over traffic ticket to allow the drug dog to get there made the stop unreasonable. Menne v. State<\/a>, 2010 Ark. App. 806, 2010 Ark. App. LEXIS 865 (December 8, 2010)* [but reversed Menne v. State<\/a>, 2012 Ark. 37, 2012 Ark. LEXIS 57 (February 2, 2012) posted here<\/a>]:<\/p>\n

The issue before us is whether the traffic stop was complete when Trooper Roark obtained consent from Menne. Based on Sims and Ayala, we hold that it was. The legitimate purpose of the traffic stop ended after nine-and-a-half minutes, when Trooper Roark had received, verified, and returned all of Menne\u2019s documentation. The trooper specifically testified that he had completed his speeding investigation, and he had written the warning ticket. We acknowledge that Trooper Roark had not yet given the ticket to Menne to sign. However, relying upon our holdings in Sims and Ayala along with the trooper\u2019s testimony that his investigation was complete, that fact does not alter our conclusion. Nine-and-a-half minutes after stopping Menne, the legitimate purpose of the stop was complete. The trooper\u2019s failure to hand over the warning ticket to Menne at that time was nothing more than a stalling tactic to allow time for the drug dog\u2019s arrival. Therefore, the trial court erred when it denied Menne\u2019s motion to suppress. Menne\u2019s detention beyond the completion of the traffic stop was illegal, and any subsequent consent given by Menne was invalid.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

On the state’s petition for review, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed<\/a> the conviction, finding that the record supports the trial court’s finding of reasonable suspicion to continue the stop. Also, defendant was advised of a right to refuse consent, although it was not legally required.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4976","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4976","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4976"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4976\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4976"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4976"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4976"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}