AZ: Detention when free to go after refusal of consent unreasonable

The Lt. Columbo Gambit fails here, and the defendant refused to consent. The stop was over, and he was walking back to his car when the officer called out to him. After he refused consent, and started to walk back to his car, the officer grabbed his arm and detained him, and the officer called for a drug dog. The continuation of the stop was without reasonable suspicion. State v. Sweeney, 224 Ariz. 107, 227 P.3d 868, 579 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 21 (Ariz. App. 2010)*:

P14 In $404,905.00, the Eighth Circuit held that the Fourth Amendment was not violated when an officer conducted a dog sniff of the defendant’s vehicle after the traffic stop was completed but before the defendant’s license had been returned to him. 182 F.3d at 648-49. There, the driver did not object to a sniff of his car’s exterior. The court reasoned that a two-minute delay to complete a dog sniff was a de minimis intrusion on the defendant’s liberty. Id. at 649. In Box, this court held that a brief post-traffic-stop detention to accommodate a dog sniff was de minimis. 205 Ariz. at 499, P 24, 73 P.3d at 630.

P15 We cannot conclude that the post-traffic-stop detention in this case was de minimis. Unlike in $404,905.00 and Box, Officer Craft waited until the arrival of a second officer (whose presence he had not requested until after Appellant declined to consent to a search) before conducting the sniff. Moreover, Officer Craft used physical force to detain Appellant when he grabbed his arm and ordered him to stand in front of the patrol car. And unlike $404,905.00 and Box, there was nothing consensual about the encounter at the time it occurred. Because we conclude that the intrusion was not de minimis, we turn our examination to whether the duration of the detention was reasonable.