Use of a drug dog that did not extend stop was valid under Caballes
FourthAmendment.com:
A traffic stop that led to a nearly immediate drug dog sniff was not extended and the dog sniff was valid under Caballes. Padilla v. State, 2008 Md. App. LEXIS 65 (May 30, 2008):
Therefore, under the Fourth Amendment, “[u]sing a dog is accepted as a perfectly legitimate utilization of a free investigative bonus as long as the traffic stop is still genuinely in progress.” State v. Ofori, 170 Md. App. 211, 235 (2006). But, “[o]nce a traffic stop is over, there is no waiting for the arrival, even the imminent arrival, of the K-9 unit.” Id. As Judge Moylan wrote for the Court, the use of a drug dog in a traffic stop is “an effective investigative tool if the police can squeeze it in before the buzzer sounds. …” Id. at 238.
Appellant does not dispute that there was reasonable suspicion to justify his initial traffic stop for speeding. Moreover, given that the dog alerted within twelve minutes of the inception of the traffic stop, at a point when Trooper Kennard had not yet received the results of the registration and license check, appellant does not contend that the traffic stop was impermissibly extended in order to conduct the scan. Nor does appellant dispute that the dog’s alert provided the trooper with probable cause to further detain appellant and to search the vehicle.
Following Maine and the Eighth Circuit, the Alabama Supreme court holds that an operating meth lab is exigent circumstances for dispensing with a search warrant. Williams v. State, 2008 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 103 (May 30, 2008).*
Defendant was not seized. While the officer’s blue lights were on, the defendant got out of his car with his hands raised even though he was not asked out of the car. Doucette v. State, 2008 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 106 (May…