State v. Escudero

Absent an independent constitutional justification, a drug-detecting dog generally cannot, consistent with Article I, section 9, sniff a car for drugs during a traffic stop. State v. Soto-Navarro, 309 Or. App. 218, 223 (2021).

Defendant appealed a conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII). Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. On appeal, Defendant argued that the deputy that stopped him for a traffic infraction unconstitutionally extended the traffic stop under the “unavoidable lull” doctrine by calling for a drug-detection dog only eight seconds into the traffic stop. In response, the State argued that the deputy’s action, calling for a drug-detection dog eight seconds into the stop, was not unconstitutional. In rejecting the “unavoidable lull” doctrine, the Court in State v. Arreola-Botello emphasized that officers' activities during a traffic stops have to be "reasonably related to the purpose of the traffic stop" or be supported by an independent constitutional justification.” 365 Or. at 712. Absent an independent constitutional justification, a drug-detecting dog generally cannot, consistent with Article I, section 9, sniff a car for drugs during a traffic stop. State v. Soto-Navarro, 309 Or. App. 218, 223 (2021). Therefore, the deputy’s call for the drug-detection dog, before he developed any independent constitutional justification to investigate anything beyond the traffic infraction, was unlawful. Reversed and remanded.