Cal.4: Prompt detour to drug investigation after traffic stop violated Rodriguez

This started as a lawful traffic stop, but the officer promptly detoured to a drug investigation and used a drug dog when defendant refused consent, and Rodriguez was violated. People v. Gyorgy, 2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 536 (4th Dist. July 14, 2023):

McGlade detoured from the traffic stop’s mission almost immediately. McGlade testified he stopped Gyorgy for the traffic violation of making an unsafe lane change. His mission for issuing a ticket or warning for the suspected traffic violation included the tasks of determining whether Gyorgy had a valid driver’s license, checking his vehicle registration and proof of insurance, ascertaining whether he had outstanding warrants, and potentially even running a criminal history check, before writing the citation or issuing the warning. (Rodriguez, supra, 575 U.S. at p. 355; see also People v. Lopez, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 363, fn. 4; People v. McGaughran (1979) 25 Cal.3d 577, 584 (plur. opn.).) From our record, it appears McGlade performed none of these tasks. The record shows McGlade requested and obtained Gyorgy’s driver’s license, but the record does not show he verified its validity through a records check. While McGlade asked Gyorgy if the truck belonged to him, he did not request the truck’s registration or insurance documentation. It was more than five minutes into the detention before McGlade explained to Gyorgy the basis for the traffic stop—an unsafe lane change. The record does not show McGlade did anything else to address the traffic violation.

McGlade inquired into matters unrelated to the suspected traffic violation, asking Gyorgy about his probation and parole status, his criminal background, the contents of his truck, and whether he was a narcotics or sex offender registrant. Upon learning Gyorgy was a registered sex offender, McGlade questioned him about where he was registered and whether he was current with his registration requirements. McGlade was permitted to detour from the traffic stop’s mission and question Gyorgy about unrelated matters only so long as the questioning did not measurably prolong the stop beyond the time required to cite him. (Rodriguez, supra, 575 U.S. at p. 355; Arizona v. Johnson, supra, 555 U.S. at p. 333.)

After the patdown search revealed nothing and Gyorgy would not give McGlade permission to search his truck, McGlade told Gyorgy he was going to use his police dog to sniff the truck’s exterior. This was about seven and one-half minutes into the traffic stop. The dog sniff and the “safety precautions” McGlade took to facilitate it were further detours from the traffic stop’s mission. (Rodriguez, supra, 575 U.S. at p. 356.) The detours McGlade took at this point included talking to Gyorgy about the dog sniff, having him remove his small dog from the truck, rolling up the truck’s windows, directing Gyorgy to sit on the curb, and taking Titan around the truck multiple times to sniff its exterior. McGlade’s detours prolonged the traffic stop’s duration beyond the time necessary to effectuate the stop’s purpose. Therefore, the stop was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. (Rodriguez, supra, 575 U.S. at pp. 354-355.)

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

Comments are closed.