FL 1DCA suppresses dog sniff of driver where sniff of vehicle led to finding nothing, but finds law has changed and certifies issue to FL S.Ct.

The Florida First District Court of Appeals suppresses a search under precedent it has to follow but argues that a traffic stop that led to a suspicionless dog sniff that led to a search of the car that produced nothing permitted a search of the driver. It certifies the following issue to the Florida Supreme Court: “Whether, under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, a trained narcotics-detection dog alert of a vehicle provides probable cause to search the vehicle’s driver who is also the sole occupant of the vehicle?” State v. Griffin, 949 So. 2d 309 (Fla. App. 1st Dist. 2007, released for publication March 8, 2007).

Informants’ tips were sufficient to show probable cause for defendant’s stop under Gates. United States v. Hernandez, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11405 (E.D. Wis. February 15, 2007):

The government relies on Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), to support its contention that the information provided by CI # 1 was sufficient to establish probable cause that Hernandez had been selling drugs. It notes that in Gates the Supreme Court held that a highly detailed tip from an anonymous informant that was corroborated by independent police work could establish probable cause. Id. at 246. But this case differs from Gates in that the informant is not anonymous, merely confidential. The distinction is significant. An anonymous informant is one whose identity is unknown, even to law enforcement. A confidential informant, on the other hand, is one whose identity is known to law enforcement but is kept confidential, at least initially, so as to maintain the informant’s effectiveness or protect him or her from retaliation. A confidential informant who provides false information can be exposed and charged with obstructing an officer, or worse. An anonymous informant who spreads lies is untouchable. It is for this reason that a substantial amount of corroboration is required in order for information provided by an anonymous informant to support a finding of probable cause. See, e.g., Gates, 462 U.S. at 243-44. But when a law enforcement officer receives information from a confidential informant, he will often have additional bases upon which to evaluate the reliability of the information provided.

Brief additional detention from asking questions of whether there was contraband in the car and whether the officer could search did not unconstitutionally extend the stop because of reasonable suspicion. United States v. Verde, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11463 (W.D. La. January 8, 2007):

During the hearing, Davis admitted that he had not detected any other criminal activity. Rather, his suspicions were aroused by the party’s conflicting stories, the defendants’ lack of knowledge of their uncle’s address (when that was their professed destination), nervousness, and Mr. Hernandez’s failure to make eye contact. Moreover, the defendants were stopped on a known drug corridor at a late hour.