{"id":4771,"date":"2011-01-11T17:14:31","date_gmt":"2010-10-13T00:50:34","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-10-12T01:02:03","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4771","title":{"rendered":"SD: Extending stop for one minute for drug dog was not unreasonable"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant\u2019s truck and fifth wheel camper were stopped for a missing front license plate required in the state the truck was from. After the paperwork was completed, the officer told the defendant that he was not<\/em> free to leave until the drug dog completed his work, and the dog arrived just as he said that. The stop was not extended more than a minute or so by sniff, and that was not unreasonable. State v. Overbey<\/a>, 2010 SD 78, 790 N.W.2d 35 (2010)*:<\/p>\n

[*P24] Defendant’s final argument is that the detention exceeded the scope of the stop because it went beyond the time required to conduct a computer check, verify documents, examine vehicle equipment, and issue a citation. Without indicating what Officer Langenfeld should or should not have done during the stop, it is difficult to ascertain the essence of Defendant’s argument. Defendant appears to be arguing that Officer Langenfeld should not have called for the drug dog because it impermissibly extended the time it took to conduct the necessary steps for the traffic stop. However, the trial court found that when Officer Langenfeld told Jason that only a warning ticket would be issued, Langenfeld also told Jason he would not be free to leave until after the drug dog conducted a sniff of the vehicle\u2019s exterior. At that exact moment, Trooper Severyn and Cas arrived and the drug sniff was conducted immediately. Within three minutes the drug sniff was completed and the law enforcement officers called dispatch to report that they would be conducting a vehicle search.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A baggie of drugs protruding from the defendant\u2019s waistband during a traffic stop was in plain view. State v. Prude<\/a>, 2010 Ohio 4892, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 4138 (8th Dist. October 7, 2010).*<\/p>\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-4771","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4771","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=4771"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4771\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4771"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4771"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4771"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}