In this archive episode, Dennis answers some group questions regarding K9 units and motor vehicle delays. Recorded on 10/13/2017. Illinois v Caballes (2005) US Supreme Court As found by the trial judge prior to the appeal, the dog sniff was sufficiently reliable to establish probable cause to conduct a full-blown search of the trunk. Caballes is the same as (2017) State v. Mark Dunbar (A-94-15; 077839) The Court adopts the federal standard barring unnecessary delays for the purpose of canine sniffs. Officers do not need reasonable suspicion of a drug offense provided that the canine sniff does not prolong the stop beyond the time required to complete the stop’s mission. United States v Pierce (2010)- The United States Supreme Court has consistently held “That an exterior canine sniff of a car during a lawful traffic stop does not amount to a search under the 4th Amendment. It is also well established that, looking at the totality of the circumstances, a dog’s positive alert while sniffing the exterior of the car provides an officer with probable cause.” Illinois v. Caballes - Amicus (Merits) | OSG | Department of Justice State v Sloan 2008 - Leaving a vehicle to be driven by a passenger or a third party allows you the right to check their driving credentials. (Criminal Wants / Warrants) This also allowed police officers to run warrant checks of passengers without Reasonable Suspicion. The police do not need a reasonable suspicion before they access the NCIC database. An NCIC check by the police is not a search under the federal or state constitutions. HELD: During a motor vehicle stop, the passenger, like the driver, is seized under the federal and state constitutions. Police do not need reasonable suspicion before they may access the NCIC database and, because accessing the NCIC database was within the scope of the traffic stop and did not unreasonably prolong the stop, there was no basis to suppress the evidence found. State of NJ v. Patino (1980) – “The discovery of a small amount of marijuana in the passenger compartment gave rise only to an inference that the occupants were casual users, and this furnished no cause to search the trunk where large “Dealer Sized” quantities of drugs would presumably be stored. “In the absence of other circumstances that suggest participation in drug trafficking or possession of more contraband” such a search could not expand beyond the persons of the occupants or the passenger compartment of the car.” State v. Patino :: 1980 :: Supreme Court of New Jersey Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia Trooper pulls over vehicle and spots plastic bag protruding from under the floor mat containing a 4.6 ounce chunk of a white powdery substance later testing positive for cocaine (Plain View) Both are arrested, read miranda, and agreed to speak, co-defendants lips were quivering when asked about the bag in the trunk and responded that he did not know what the contents were. (364 Plastic Vials used for packaging found) Court said – “These are the very types of circumstances that the Patino court referred to, as providing probable cause to search the entire vehicle including the trunk and the interior of the paper bags in the trunk. Allows an officer, after discovery of contraband, to question a defendant after having read them their Miranda rights. State v. Letman :: 1989 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia State v Guerra 1983 The troopers lawfully stopped the vehicle. They then detected a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the interior of the vehicle. Thus they had probable cause to search the trunk for evidence of contraband. The packages found in the trunk were validly searched. Regardless of the visibility of their contents, the size of the packages and the odor of marijuana that they emitted clearly suggested that they...