State v. Rosales

“An officer may not conduct investigations unrelated to the stop’s mission ‘in a way that prolongs the stop, absent reasonably suspicion.’ A dog sniff is aimed at detecting ‘ordinary criminal wrongdoing’ and is ‘not ordinary incent of a traffic stop.’” Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1615 (2015).

Defendant appealed a conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled substance following a conditional guilty plea. Defendant argued that she was unlawfully seized when an officer subsequently conducted a dog sniff that extended the traffic stop. Defendant further argued that the trial court should have suppressed evidence found as a result of the dog sniff because police obtained it as a result of the unlawful seizure. In response, the State argued that defendant was not subject to the type of coercion or restraint of liberty that can give rise to a seizure. “An officer may not conduct investigations unrelated to the stop’s mission ‘in a way that prolongs the stop, absent reasonably suspicion.’ A dog sniff is aimed at detecting ‘ordinary criminal wrongdoing’ and is ‘not ordinary incent of a traffic stop.’” Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1615 (2015). The Court found that the dog sniff extended the detention of defendant in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; thus, the Court held the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s suppression motion. Reversed and remanded.