Can Police Detain U Over 1 Hour

[stringcm]

What is the name of your state? Texas
Can DPS detain you after they handed you the Warning Citation? When he handed me the Citation he asked if he could search my car, I said no. He became irate and held me for over 1 hour waiting for a K-9 Unit to arrive.

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by stringcm

What is the name of your state? Texas
Can DPS detain you after they handed you the Warning Citation? When he handed me the Citation he asked if he could search my car, I said no. He became irate and held me for over 1 hour waiting for a K-9 Unit to arrive.

Q: Can DPS detain you after they handed you the Warning Citation?

A: Yes.

[tranquility]

From the bare facts you've provided, probably not. The original purpose for the stop was (probably) completed with the issuance of a citation. Generally, you are now "free to leave" unless you consent to staying. Dog searches have been approved, but usually if they arrive within the time needed for the reasonable investigation related to the original reason for the stop or to any newley-developed reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

In Tenn:
Officer who stopped defendant for speeding 8 mph over in a construction zone on I-40 near Memphis and who, when handed the DL and papers to the car, ordered the defendant out of the vehicle, frisked him, and ordered him to sit in the patrol car (a "frisk and sit") and there questioned him about the car and travel plans violated the Fourth Amendment. The court viewed the videotape and concluded that the entirety of the continuation of the stop was unreasonable and unrelated to the reason for the stop. It led to a dog sniff and opening the hood and removing bolts to find a hidden compartment. Trial court's suppression order sustained. State v. Berrios, 2006 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 193 (March 3, 2006) (driver was Hispanic, and the officer obviously had an investigative motive throughout).

In Ind:
After traffic stop, officers told defendant he could leave, and asked for consent to search the cab of his truck, which he declined. They let him go. He drove to the next rest area to use the facilities. When he came out, he was told he was free to leave but the truck wasn't, and a drug dog was coming. The dog alerted on the cab. Search suppressed. State v. Quirk, 842 N.E.2d 334 (Ind. February 14, 2006).

However in Mich:
Court strains to find RS for detention for dog. While nervousness alone was not enough, nervousness was not as exaggerated as in other cases. Other, seemingly innocuous details, taken together supported RS (soft sided brief case, body odor, food wrappers). United States v. Lewis, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38142 (W.D. Mich. December 27, 2005)*

[tranquility]

Again, not to answer the question as you did not provide enough facts, but from the Supreme Court at:

Illinois v. Caballes, 125 S.Ct. 834, 543 U.S. 405, 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (U.S. 01/24/2005)
/
/
/
Here, the initial seizure of respondent when he was stopped on the highway was based on probable cause, and was concededly lawful. It is nevertheless clear that a seizure that is lawful at its inception can violate the Fourth Amendment if its manner of execution unreasonably infringes interests protected by the Constitution. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U. S. 109, 124 (1984). A seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission. In an earlier case involving a dog sniff that occurred during an unreasonably prolonged traffic stop, the Illinois Supreme Court held that use of the dog and the subsequent discovery of contraband were the product of an unconstitutional seizure. People v. Cox, 202 Ill. 2d 462, 782 N. E. 2d 275 (2002). We may assume that a similar result would be warranted in this case if the dog sniff had been conducted while respondent was being unlawfully detained.


In the state-court proceedings, however, the judges carefully reviewed the details of Officer Gillette's conversations with respondent and the precise timing of his radio transmissions to the dispatcher to determine whether he had improperly extended the duration of the stop to enable the dog sniff to occur. We have not recounted those details because we accept the state court's conclusion that the duration of the stop in this case was entirely justified by the traffic offense and the ordinary inquiries incident to such a stop.


Despite this conclusion, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the initially lawful traffic stop became an unlawful seizure solely as a result of the canine sniff that occurred outside respondent's stopped car. That is, the court characterized the dog sniff as the cause rather than the consequence of a constitutional violation. In its view, the use of the dog converted the citizen-police encounter from a lawful traffic stop into a drug investigation, and because the shift in purpose was not supported by any reasonable suspicion that respondent possessed narcotics, it was unlawful. In our view, conducting a dog sniff would not change the character of a traffic stop that is lawful at its inception and otherwise executed in a reasonable manner, unless the dog sniff itself infringed respondent's constitutionally protected interest in privacy. Our cases hold that it did not.

[gawm]

Originally Posted by stringcm

What is the name of your state? Texas
Can DPS detain you after they handed you the Warning Citation? When he handed me the Citation he asked if he could search my car, I said no. He became irate and held me for over 1 hour waiting for a K-9 Unit to arrive.

Did they find anything?

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by stringcm

What is the name of your state? Texas
Can DPS detain you after they handed you the Warning Citation? When he handed me the Citation he asked if he could search my car, I said no. He became irate and held me for over 1 hour waiting for a K-9 Unit to arrive.

Egads! I'd say whether they found anything or not, that would be an unlawful detention ... absent some other good cause. But once he handed you the citation, you should have been free to go unless the officer developed additional cause to hold you.

However, a "warning citation" is not quite the same as a citation, so the TX courts may not view that as a conclusion of an otherwise lawful detention. However, I would think that holding you for an hour whiile he waited for a dog without any further cause would be excessive.

Did they find anything? if so, what does the report say about the reason you were detained?

-Carl

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

Egads! I'd say whether they found anything or not, that would be an unlawful detention ... absent some other good cause. But once he handed you the citation, you should have been free to go unless the officer developed additional cause to hold you.

However, a "warning citation" is not quite the same as a citation, so the TX courts may not view that as a conclusion of an otherwise lawful detention. However, I would think that holding you for an hour whiile he waited for a dog without any further cause would be excessive.

Did they find anything? if so, what does the report say about the reason you were detained?

-Carl

[url]http://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=282923[/url]

I suspect we did not hear the facts.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by seniorjudge

[url]http://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=282923[/url]

I suspect we did not hear the facts.

The link you provided led to a real estate question from many months ago.

EDIT: Okay ... I see now that it was started by the same poster. I suppose there may well be something more here - maybe an attitude? It still wouldn't justify the detention (by itself) but it might explain how he pissed off the cop.

- Carl