DOOLEY, J. Defendant I was charged with possession of heroin and cocaine and sought to suppress all evidence of drugs seized from his vehicle after a police dog indicated the presence of drugs. The trial court found that the contraband was obtained through the illegal expansion of the scope of a motor vehicle violation stop into a criminal drug investigation, suppressed the evidence, and dismissed the charges. The State of Vermont appeals the trial court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress and dismiss. On appeal, the State contends that a minimal delay following the completion of a traffic stop for a dog sniff is reasonable under federal and state law. However, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Rodriguez v. U.S., ___ U.S. ___, ___, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 1612 (2015), we affirm the trial court's decision to dismiss the case against defendant.
A police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution's shield against unreasonable seizures. Rodriguez established that the Fourth Amendment does not permit a dog sniff conducted after the completion of a traffic stop that is "prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission" of issuing a ticket for the violation.
After the corporal informed defendant he would be mailing a ticket for operating a motor vehicle while under suspension defendant denied permission for a search of the vehicle. The corporal returned to his cruiser and released the drug dog and walked him around defendant's vehicle. The dog alerted to the presence of drugs upon reaching the driver's side door. The corporal informed defendant of the alert; he again asked for permission to search, and defendant denied permission. Approximately seven to eight minutes had passed from the time the corporal stopped defendant until he deployed the drug dog.
After the corporal informed defendant he would be mailing a ticket for operating a motor vehicle while under suspension defendant denied permission for a search of the vehicle. The corporal returned to his cruiser and released the drug dog and walked him around defendant's vehicle. The dog alerted to the presence of drugs upon reaching the driver's side door. The corporal informed defendant of the alert; he again asked for permission to search, and defendant denied permission. Approximately seven to eight minutes had passed from the time the corporal stopped defendant until he deployed the drug dog.
We agree with the trial court that the stop "extended beyond the time reasonably necessary . . . to address the traffic offense," as the corporal deployed the drug dog after informing defendant he would mail a ticket for the traffic violation, the point at which he presumably accomplished the purpose of the stop.
No comments:
Post a Comment