D.Utah: Govt had burden on proving RS to continue stop and failed to put on justification; suppressed

The government carried the burden on the basis for the stop but not why it was continued, and the record tells the court nothing about the first 65 minutes of delay. “[T]he court concludes that the dog’s entry into the car constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment and, therefore, must have been supported by probable cause.” Also, defendant’s statements are fruit of the poisonous tree. United States v. Pena-Armenta, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 242184 (D. Utah Dec. 23, 2020):

Before addressing these questions, the court reiterates that it is the government’s burden in demonstrating that the stop is constitutionally sound and that there is essentially zero evidence before the court regarding the first 65 minutes of the stop. See United States v. Perdue, 8 F.3d 1455, 1462 (10th Cir.1993) (establishing that the government bears the burden of proving constitutionality). Turning to the matter at hand, in United States v. Mendoza, the Tenth Circuit addressed the amount of time that an officer may reasonably detain an individual under an investigative stop while waiting for a K-9 unit to respond. 468 F.3d 1256 (10th Cir. 2006). In Mendoza, the officer stopped the defendant after he rolled through a stop sign. Id. at 1258. As the officer ordered the defendant to roll the windows down, the officer noticed a strong smell and strange placement of air fresheners in the car. Id. During the officer’s initial exchange with the defendant, the defendant seemed nervous, changed his story about who owned the vehicle, and gave other suspicious or inconsistent answers to the officer’s questions. Id. at 1258-59. After the officer confirmed the driver had a valid license and proper registration, he asked for permission to search the vehicle. Id. at 1259. The driver refused to consent to the search. Id. At that point, the officer informed the defendant that he was not free to leave until a K-9 unit could come to inspect the vehicle. Id. The officer then promptly called for a dog. Id. The K-9 unit, however, was 50 miles away and took 40 minutes to arrive. Id. When the dog arrived it alerted on the car and the subsequent search uncovered methamphetamine. Id. Before his trial, the defendant attempted to suppress the evidence uncovered by the search and the district court denied his motion. Id.

. . .

For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that Plaintiff has not shown that the length of the detention was reasonable under the circumstances or that there was probable cause for a custodial detention. See Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354 (2015) (“Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been — completed.” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, the court finds that the officers violated Defendants’ Fourth Amendment rights.