Prolonged Traffic Stop and K-9 Sniff After the Mission Was Complete
At 11:40 p.m., Worcester police officer Diaz stops a car for a burned-out headlight. The driver, Ken, is licensed and sober. The passenger, Mia, owns the car but is not driving. Diaz asks for license and registration; Ken provides them. Diaz writes a warning. While waiting for the dispatcher, Diaz asks Ken whether there are drugs in the car; Ken says no. Diaz asks for consent to search; Ken says 'I'd rather not.' Mia says nothing. Diaz then calls for a K-9 unit. The dog arrives 9 minutes later; by then the warning has been issued and the dispatcher has cleared the stop. The dog alerts on the trunk. Officers find 20 grams of fentanyl. Mia and Ken are charged with trafficking. Mia moves to suppress, arguing the stop was prolonged without reasonable suspicion. The government argues the dog sniff was during a lawful stop and that Mia lacks standing because she was not driving.
1. Was the stop unlawfully prolonged under Rodriguez v. United States?
Read the worked answer
The initial stop was lawful because a burned-out headlight is a traffic violation. The problem is duration. Under Rodriguez v. United States, an officer may not prolong a stop beyond the time reasonably required to complete the stop's mission absent reasonable suspicion. Diaz had finished the mission: he checked Ken's license and registration, wrote a warning, and the dispatcher cleared the stop. Waiting nine more minutes for a K-9 unit was a prolongation. The refusal to consent cannot supply reasonable suspicion, and there were no other facts-sobriety, valid license, no furtive movements-supporting it. A dog sniff is not itself a search under Illinois v. Caballes, but it must occur within a lawful seizure. Because the seizure was unlawfully extended, the alert and the later trunk search are fruits of the violation.
2. Does Mia have standing to challenge the search of the trunk?
Read the worked answer
Mia has Fourth Amendment standing. Standing is really a question whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched. Mia owned the car and was a passenger; an owner retains a privacy interest in the vehicle and its trunk even when another person is driving. She is not relying solely on Ken's consent-there was no consent. The government's argument that she lacks standing because she was not driving confuses standing with control. A passenger may challenge a search of the car if the passenger has a possessory or privacy interest; an owner plainly does. She can therefore seek suppression of the fentanyl.
3. Should the fentanyl be suppressed, and does Massachusetts law change the result?
Read the worked answer
The fentanyl should be suppressed. The exclusionary rule reaches evidence obtained as a direct or indirect result of an unconstitutional seizure. The dog alert was the immediate product of the nine-minute unlawful extension; the trunk search followed the alert. No exception applies. The inevitable-discovery doctrine does not help because the record does not show that the drugs would have been found through an independent lawful line of investigation. Attenuation is weak: the search occurred minutes after the illegality. Massachusetts Declaration of Rights art. 14 is at least as protective and would reach the same result. The charges against Mia should be dismissed unless the Commonwealth has independent evidence.