In State v. Ruiz, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed Fourth Amendment issues relating to the use of a drug detection canine (K9) to conduct a search of a vehicle during a traffic stop. The district court had denied the defense motion to suppress. The defendant entered a guilty plea but reserved the right to appeal the district court’s ruling on the suppression motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s original decision, holding that the police conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Facts and Case Background
The defendant was charged with possession of a firearm by a restricted person. After seeing the defendant pull the vehicle he was driving into a parking lot, police activated their emergency lights and pulled into the parking lot. Backup officers arrived, including a canine unit.
Police had received a previous report that individuals possibly connected with the defendant had been involved in an incident involving “brandishing weapons” near the location that defendant was stopped. Based on that information police asked if they could frisk the defendant for weapons. He agreed to that limited search of his person, and no weapons were found.
Police then asked the defendant for permission to search the vehicle he was driving. He declined the officer’s request, stating that the vehicle belonged to a family member. While police were speaking with the defendant, another officer walked his K-9 (dog) around the vehicle.
As the dog passed by a partially-open window, the dog dropped to all fours then “spontaneously” jumped through the half-open window and into the car. After moving about in the car for around thirty seconds, the dog stopped and “indicated” on the center console of the vehicle — a signal that the dog had located potential contraband.
Police searched and found “rolling papers” in the center console. Police also found a handgun under the driver seat of the vehicle.
Issue, Rule, and Analysis
In State v. Ruiz, the court addressed the question of whether police violate a person’s Fourth Amendment rights when a dog “spontaneously” jumps into a vehicle while police are using the dog for what would otherwise be a constitutional search/sniff.
Courts in Utah have previously held that police are permitted to use a dog to sniff only the outside of a vehicle during a traffic stop, so long as the activities of the police involving the dog do not unreasonably extend the duration of the stop. In Ruiz, the court held that police did not violate the Fourth Amendment because police did not command the dog to jump into the car and the dog was not trained to spontaneously jump into the car.
Even though police were aware that the dog had jumped into the car, the district court had found that the police did not encourage or command the dog to enter the car. One officer even testified that he had actively tried to restrain the dog because he “didn’t want him to get hurt trying to jump in that window.”
In reaching its decision, the Utah Court of Appeals cited to other appellate opinions in which federal courts have approved police conduct when a dog entered a car “instinctively” rather than on command of its handler, and where police did not cause or ask the driver to open the “point of entry” used by the dog (such as a window or hatchback).
Conclusion
Although the Court of Appeals approved the police conduct in Ruiz, cases involving police K-9 units are often very fact-specific. Small differences in the facts of the case can lead to very different rulings on a suppression motion. Consultation with an experienced criminal attorney is always important.
