CA7: Other officers bringing drug dog didn’t extend the stop

“The district court here found that Cowick detained Gholston only long enough to complete these same procedures, and that the dog alerted before Cowick had finished printing the second ticket. This is not a case in which an officer completes the activities for a stop and then detains the suspect longer in order to allow time for a K9 officer to arrive. The district court credited Cowick’s testimony that he never stopped working on the ticket even as he communicated with other officers. Critically, the court found that Cowick did not extend the stop at all, not that any delay was permissibly de minimis. Based on those factual findings, the court correctly held that this stop did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Gholston, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 17658 (7th Cir. June 14, 2021) (dissent)

“In sum, if an officer observes an individual drive his vehicle left of center for any amount of time, that officer has observed the individual commit a traffic violation, and the officer has probable cause to conduct a traffic stop of that vehicle.” Toppo v. State, 2021 Ind. App. LEXIS 197 (June 14, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.