Judge: Cops Can't Extend a Traffic Stop If a Drug Dog Detects Nothing
No fishing
If a drug dog fails to indicate during a traffic stop, the stop must come to an end, a federal court ruled last week. US District Judge Dale A. Kimball threw out the evidence against Apolonio Rodriguez and Bernardo Herrada after they successfully argued Logan City, Utah police officers impermissibly extended a traffic stop when they had no solid evidence that they had committed a crime.
On September 21, 2012, Officer Shand Nazer and Officer-in-Training Shawn Oliverson pulled over the Chevy Astron van of Rodriguez and Herrada. A drug task force member had attached a GPS tracking device that recorded the van driving from Utah to a city in California known for being a source of drugs. The van then returned to Utah. During a previous traffic stop, a drug dog had indicated drugs were present in the van, but a search turned up nothing illegal. A drug task force member asked Officer Nazer to stop the van as it came into the city.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
LEOs will give this decision a shrug.
They'll figure out a way around it. They always do.