On May 24, 2023, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided the United States v. Gutierrez[i], which is an excellent review of the law related to K9 sniffs and the permissible scope of a traffic stop.  The relevant facts of Gutierrez are as follows:

Florida state trooper Gabriel Llanes stopped Gutierrez and his wife at 8:55 a.m. as they travelled in a semi-truck towing a trailer full of smaller cars. Florida law requires that the lettering on a license plate be clearly visible, FLA. STAT. § 316.605(1), but according to Llanes’s testimony, the lights over Gutierrez’s license plate faced outward and prevented Llanes from reading the license plate. Llanes explained this violation to Gutierrez and decided to give him a written warning.

Llanes began to write that warning at 9:01 a.m., at which time his patrol car’s computer time-stamped the warning. He testified that the warning took more time than usual to complete because Gutierrez’s truck, trailer, and license were from three different states. While Llanes was still working on the warning, another trooper arrived and called for a K-9 unit to conduct an open-air drug sniff. The unit arrived at 9:12 a.m., while Llanes was still working on the warning, and Llanes paused only to tell the arriving officer about the situation, to step out of his car for his own safety, and to explain the reason for the stop to Gutierrez’s wife.

Before Llanes could finish the written warning, a drug dog alerted the troopers to the presence of illicit drugs. In a toolbox on the driver’s side of the truck, the troopers found methamphetamine and blue tablets that looked like Oxycodone but were in fact fentanyl. The troopers arrested Gutierrez, and Llanes finished the warning at the jail. Gutierrez was indicted for possessing, with the intent to distribute, five grams or more of both methamphetamine and a substance containing fentanyl.[ii]

Gutierrez was charged under federal law.  He filed a motion to suppress and argued that Trooper Llanes unlawfully prolonged the stop, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, to allow the K9 to conduct a sniff of his vehicle.  The district court denied the motion.  Gutierrez was convicted by a jury and subsequently appealed the denial of his motion to suppress.

The issues on appeal were (1) whether Trooper Llanes had at least reasonable suspicion for the initial stop of Gutierrez’s vehicle, and (2) whether Trooper Llanes unreasonably prolonged the stop to allow the K9 to conduct a sniff of the exterior of Gutierrez’s vehicle.

The court of appeals first discussed the legal principles relevant to the issues and stated

The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. CONST. amend. IV. To enforce this prohibition, courts exclude evidence that is the fruit of an unreasonable search or seizure. United States v. Perkins, 348 F.3d 965, 969 (11th Cir. 2003). A routine traffic stop qualifies as a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and a stop is permissible only if the police have “reasonable suspicion” of unlawful activity. Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 354-55. A traffic stop must not extend beyond when the “tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed.” Id. at 354. So a police officer “may conduct certain unrelated checks,” such as an open-air dog sniff, as part of the stop, but the checks must not prolong the stop unless there is independent reasonable suspicion for those checks. Id. at 355; see also Campbell, 26 F.4th at 884.[iii]

Next, the court of appeals considered whether the trooper had at least reasonable suspicion to stop Gutierrez.  Gutierrez argued that his license plate was not obscured.  The court examined a photograph of the license plate obtained from Trooper Llanes’ dash camera.  The district court concluded that “at least part of one number was blocked.”  The trooper testified that when he first saw the tag, it was at an angle therefore, the tag appeared more obscured than it did when the dash camera was pointed directly behind the tag.  The district court credited the trooper’s testimony regarding the tag.  The court of appeals stated that the decision of the district court was not “clearly erroneous” therefore, they affirmed the decision that there was sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify the stop.

Lastly, the court of appeals examined whether the trooper unreasonably prolonged the stop to allow the K9 to conduct a sniff of the vehicle.  Gutierrez argued that warning citation was completed at 9:01 a.m., and he was detained an additional eleven minutes for the K9.

The court noted that Gutierrez misread the record because the trooper actually began writing the warning citation at 9:01 a.m.  Further, the trooper was still working on the warning ticket at the time the K9 arrived.  In fact, at the time the K9 alerted to the presence of drugs in Gutierez’s vehicle, the trooper was still writing the warning citation.  Because the trooper was still working on the warning citation paperwork, the stop was not prolonged.

Thus, the court of appeals held that there was no clear error, and they affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress.

Note:  Court holdings can vary significantly between jurisdictions.  As such, it is advisable to seek the advice of a local prosecutor or legal adviser regarding questions on specific cases.  This article is not intended to constitute legal advice on a specific case.

______________________________________________

Citations

[i] No. 21-13791 (11th Cir. Decided May 24, 2023 Unpublished)

[ii] Id. at 2-3

[iii] Id. at 6 (emphasis added)