Motion to suppress; Traffic stop; Prolonging an investigative seizure; Calling a canine unit; Reasonable suspicion

The court held that based “on the totality of the facts and circumstances, . . . the officer lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity that justified prolonging the traffic stop and thus defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated.” It reversed the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress and remanded. He “was pulled over in an empty parking lot when he was confronted by a police officer [P]. Approximately two minutes after [P’s] initial contact with [him], the officer requested a drug-sniffing dog. A search of defendant’s vehicle yielded” meth. He moved to suppress that evidence. The parties disputed “whether, and at what point, defendant was ‘seized’ under the Fourth Amendment.” The court held that “the totality of the circumstances show that [he] was seized before [P] called for the canine unit.” It concluded that P was “justified in seizing defendant to address a possible traffic violation.” But it found that when P “called for a canine unit, the detention became focused on defendant’s potential possession of illegal drugs.” The court noted that P “testified that he was concerned that the vehicle was not safe to operate on the roadway because of its condition. While [P] testified that defendant ‘appeared nervous’ when the deputy first approached him, the video-audio recording of the encounter does not reveal any observable signs of nervousness.” Defendant answered P’s “questions and readily produced his identification. It took time for [him] to form his responses and his speech was impaired, but these deficits can be attributed to his previous stroke.” The court noted that P “also testified that defendant reached into the driver’s side of the vehicle during the initial encounter, which raised a concern that [he] may be attempting to grab for or conceal a weapon. But this concern was quickly dispelled when defendant answered truthfully that he did not have any weapons, a second officer led [him] away from the vehicle, and the driver’s side door was shut. Further, [P] testified that he requested a canine unit to search for drugs, not guns.” The court held that based “on the totality of the facts and circumstances” P did not have “a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity that justified extending the stop to conduct a dog sniff. [Thus,] the trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion to suppress.”