{"id":1227,"date":"2007-10-27T15:59:38","date_gmt":"2007-08-08T07:20:48","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-08-08T07:20:48","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1227","title":{"rendered":"OH: Use of a drug dog during normal time of a traffic stop was not unconstitutional"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ohio’s Sixth District Court of Appeals holds that a traffic stop that included the use of a drug dog within the officer’s normal 15 minutes for a traffic stop [note my prior post stating that it should not take more than 2-3 minutes<\/a>; apparently it depends upon the nature of the fishing expedition] was not unconstitutional. State v. Johnson<\/a>, 2007 Ohio 3961, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 3603 (6th Dist. August 3, 2007):<\/p>\n

[*P10] In the case under consideration, the entire traffic stop took about seven minutes, or half the time usually expended by Trooper Romero prior to issuing a citation. Based on the facts offered at the suppression hearing, the trooper had probable cause to stop the vehicle for speeding and detain Flory and appellant for the length of time necessary to run background checks and issue a citation or warning. Furthermore, as stated above, he was not required to have any reasonable suspicion of drug activity in order to have Hans perform an exterior sniff of the car. Therefore, the fact that his conversation with the occupants of the vehicle also supplied Trooper Romero with some suspicion of drug activity is of little consequence. In addition, the duration of the conversation was not of such a length to impermissibly expand the length of detention. Hans, who was certified as a drug detection dog at the time of the stop, alerted before the permissible background checks were completed, and the alert gave Trooper Romero probable cause to search the entire vehicle.<\/p>\n

[*P11] Consequently, in viewing the stop under a totality of the circumstances test, we conclude that Trooper Romero did not engage in an impermissible “fishing expedition.” Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, and appellant’s sole assignment of error is found not well-taken.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Traffic statute that regulated exiting tollroad to pay tolls that defendant argued was unconstitutionally overbroad, thus voiding his traffic stop, still justified the stop. Under Illinois v. Krull<\/em>, the statute was constitutional enough for the officers to rely on it, and the product of the stop would not be suppressed for that reason. Also, the district court rejects the defense claim that the dog alerted because of handler cues. United States v. Melcher, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56961 (N.D. Okla. August 3, 2007):<\/p>\n

The exclusionary rule ought not be employed when officers acted in good faith reliance on a statute, even if the statute ultimately may be found unconstitutional. See Krull<\/em>, 480 U.S. at 355; Michigan v. DeFillippo<\/em>, 443 U.S. 31 (1979); Cardenas-Alatorre<\/em>, 485 F.3d at 1114. This exception to the exclusionary rule is applicable here. The Court is unable to conclude that the troopers acted in an objectively unreasonable manner in relying on OKLA. STAT. tit. 47, \u00a711-309(2). See Cardenas-Alatorre<\/em>, 485 F.3d at 1115-17 (holding that, even if the New Mexico traffic law was unconstitutionally vague as applied to defendant, the court was unable to conclude that the officer acted in an objectively unreasonable manner in relying on the traffic statute to effectuate a traffic stop; thus, the exclusionary rule did not apply). Thus, the evidence should not be excluded.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This district court erroneously found no reasonable suspicion during what was a valid traffic stop. During the 22 minutes of the stop at 3 a.m., defendant gave a false name, passenger’s failure to know where they had been during travels or his social security number, etc. United States v. Ellis<\/a>, 497 F.3d 606, 2007 FED App. 0297P (6th Cir. 2007).*<\/p>\n

Officer had reasonable suspicion at least, and apparently probable cause, for plaintiff’s stop, so summary judgment granted the officer. Miller v. O’Bryan, 498 F. Supp. 2d 548 (N.D. N.Y. 2007).*<\/p>\n

Videotape of controlled buys rendered the alleged deficient portions of the affidavit to be irrelevant. There was abundant probable cause on the videotape alone. United States v. Harris, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57114 (E.D. Ark. August 3, 2007).* (Comment:<\/em> Controlled buys recorded via a camera on the snitch’s body are becoming more common since the cost of cameras and records has come way down.)<\/p>\n

Knock and talk led to a warrantless entry without any showing of exigent circumstances, and qualified immunity did not protect the officers from trial on this question. Modrell v. Hayden, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56980 (W.D. Ky. August 2, 2007)*:<\/p>\n

This Court cannot find that the Defendants have met the heavy burden of proving exigency. See Radka<\/em>, 904 F.2d at 361. There is no evidence in the record that any suspected illegal activity was ongoing in the upper portion of the residence occupied by Plaintiff.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1227","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1227","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1227"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1227\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1227"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1227"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1227"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}