Thursday, July 7, 2016

Prior Criminal History Did Not Justify the Use of a Drug Sniffing Dog During Traffic Stop

Police holding someone during a traffic stop because the driver’s prior criminal history involving drugs did not warrant the use of a drug sniffing canine that led to an eventual arrest

State v. Alvarez, Haw., 2016 BL 211663, No. SCWC-12-0000838, 6/30/16.

    The Hawaii Supreme Court found that officers lacked a reasonable suspicion to call in a drug sniffing canine during a traffic stop, even though the suspect had a prior criminal history and was currently suspected of selling drugs. The court held that the stop was still unconstitutional, even if the canine unit arrived within the time frame of writing and processing the tickets for a seatbelt infraction. Under Rodriguez v. United States, the United States Supreme Court found that there is no Fourth Amendment violation if the drug sniffing canine arrives during the normal time needed for the traffic stop. The Hawaii Supreme Court, however, did not view timeliness as the only requirement for such a search. Under the Hawaii Constitution, any unreasonable invasions of privacy, as well as unreasonable searches and seizures, are forbidden. Within this protection of privacy, the escalation of any investigation that is not supported by any other evidence of criminal activity is also forbidden.

   The court held that for the drug sniffing dog to be used, there needed to be a separate criminal inquiry into possible drug distribution. The evidence, however, was not sufficient to warrant a separate inquiry. The court held that a history of drug use and a five-day old tip on the driver’s criminal activity was not sufficient to warrant reasonable suspicion to allow for an escalated investigation. In the opinion, the court recognized that if the evidence used by police was sufficient for a separate criminal investigation, then “any traffic stop could be improperly utilized to detain individuals based on their previous misconduct.”


http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/State_v_Alvarez_No_SCWC120000838_2016_BL_211663_Haw_June_30_2016_

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.