The Eighteen-Minute Extension of a Completed Traffic Stop
At 2:14 a.m., an Oklahoma City police officer stopped a pickup for a burned-out license-plate lamp. The officer radioed in the plate and license; dispatch reported no warrants and a valid license by 2:21. At 2:23, the officer handed the driver a written warning and said, 'You're free to go after I ask one thing.' The officer then asked for consent to search; the driver refused. At 2:25, the officer called a K-9 unit 'to check for narcotics.' The officer had no odor of marijuana, no furtive movements, no admission, no outstanding warrants, and no information from dispatch beyond the clean check. The K-9 arrived at 2:38 and alerted at 2:41. A search of a locked toolbox produced methamphetamine. The driver is charged in Oklahoma County. The State concedes the dog sniff was not supported by reasonable suspicion but argues that an 18-minute extension is de minimis and that a sniff is not a search. The driver moves to suppress.
1. Should the court suppress the methamphetamine? Apply the Fourth Amendment rules governing traffic-stop extensions and dog sniffs.
Read the worked answer
Yes. A traffic stop is lawful at the outset, but it must be reasonably related in scope to the traffic violation and last no longer than necessary to complete the stop's mission. The mission includes checking the driver's license, checking warrants, and issuing the warning. By 2:23 the officer had done those things. Extending the stop for a dog sniff required independent reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; the State concedes there was none. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015), rejects the idea that a de minimis extension is permissible. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005), allows a dog sniff during a lawful stop only when it does not prolong the stop. Here the 18-minute extension was unlawful, so the alert and the methamphetamine are fruits of the unlawful seizure. Suppress.
2. If the K-9 had arrived at 2:22 and alerted at 2:24, before the warning was issued, would suppression still be required?
Read the worked answer
No, on those facts suppression would not be required, assuming the sniff did not prolong the stop. The license and warrant check was complete at 2:21, but the officer was still diligently completing the mission by preparing and issuing the written warning in the next two minutes. A dog sniff of the exterior of a vehicle is not a search under Caballes. Because the sniff occurred during a lawful stop and did not extend it, the alert supplied probable cause to search the toolbox. The result would change only if the officer had abandoned the traffic mission and was merely waiting for the dog.