State v. Pichardo

When consent is given to a search after questioning that unlawfully extends a stop, evidence obtained must be suppressed.

While looking for a wanted person, officers noticed Pichardo idling in a traffic lane. Officers discovered the wanted man in Pichardo’s car, and asked for ID and insurance information. Officers asked for consent to search Pichardo for drugs to which consent was given along with an admission that he had heroin in his pocket. Pichardo was arrested and prior to trial moved to suppress this evidence, arguing that the stop was not supported by probable cause, and alternatively that officers unlawfully extended the scope and duration of the stop by asking about drugs without reasonable suspicion. The motion was denied and Pichardo entered a conditional plea of no contest for possession of heroin. On appeal, the state argued there was reasonable suspicion, and alternatively that Pichardo’s consent was attenuated from proceeding illegality. The Court held officers unlawfully extended the duration of the stop by asking for consent to search for drugs. Because the drug-related questioning was not supported by reasonable suspicion, the extension of the stop was unlawful. Further, Pichardo’s consent was a product of illegal extension, so the evidence obtained must be suppressed. Reversed and remanded.