Thomas J. Davis v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
No reporter information available (2016)
Rule of Law:
A police officer may not extend a lawful traffic stop beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission of the stop in order to conduct a narcotics-detection dog sniff, unless the officer has an independent, reasonable, and articulable suspicion that other criminal activity is afoot.
Facts:
- Officer Tim McCoy, accompanied by his narcotics-detection dog Chico, was on patrol looking for DUI drivers and was aware of prior allegations that Thomas J. Davis was involved with illegal drugs.
- McCoy observed Davis's vehicle cross the center line of the road several times and initiated a traffic stop.
- Upon approaching the vehicle, McCoy smelled alcohol and observed an open beer can in the center console.
- McCoy asked Davis to exit the vehicle and administered two field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test, all of which Davis passed, indicating he was not intoxicated.
- After Davis passed the sobriety tests, he refused to give McCoy consent to search his vehicle.
- McCoy then informed Davis he was going to have Chico perform a sniff search of the vehicle's exterior, to which Davis objected.
- Chico sniffed the vehicle for one to two minutes and alerted on a lower door panel, indicating the presence of narcotics.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas J. Davis was charged in McLean Circuit Court with first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance and other offenses.
- Davis filed a motion to suppress the evidence found during the search, arguing the stop was unlawfully extended.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
- Davis entered a conditional guilty plea, which preserved his right to appeal the trial court's denial of his suppression motion.
- Davis appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Kentucky.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer violate the Fourth Amendment by prolonging a traffic stop to conduct a narcotics-detection dog sniff after the original purpose of the stop—to investigate a potential DUI—has been resolved and the driver has been found to be sober?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Venters
Yes, the officer violated the Fourth Amendment. A traffic stop that is prolonged beyond the point reasonably required to complete its mission is an unlawful seizure. The purpose of this stop was to investigate a potential DUI. Once the field sobriety tests showed Davis was not intoxicated, that purpose was complete. Extending the stop to conduct a dog sniff, which is an investigation aimed at detecting unrelated criminal wrongdoing, was not part of the stop's original mission. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Rodriguez v. United States, the court held that any extension, even a de minimis one, is unconstitutional without independent reasonable suspicion. Here, the officer had no new, articulable suspicion of drug activity after the DUI suspicion was dispelled, so prolonging the stop for the dog sniff was an unconstitutional seizure, and the evidence discovered as a result must be suppressed.
Analysis:
This decision formally adopts the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Rodriguez v. United States into Kentucky state law, clarifying that there is no 'de minimis' exception for prolonging a traffic stop for an unrelated investigation. It significantly constrains police discretion by requiring that the duration of a stop be strictly tied to its original purpose. The ruling prevents officers from using a routine traffic stop as a pretext to conduct a 'fishing expedition' for other crimes, like drug possession, unless new facts emerge during the stop that provide a separate basis for reasonable suspicion. This strengthens Fourth Amendment protections for motorists and requires lower courts to focus not on the total length of the stop, but on whether its purpose was completed before the new investigative measure began.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Thomas J. Davis v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (2016)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"