[Music] welcome to audit the audit where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions this episode covers the exclusionary rule can9 sniffs and extending traffic stops and is brought To Us by one love ANS Channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve in a video posted on May 19th 2023 the owner of the one love an YouTube channel who we will refer to as Mr love was pulled over by several officers with the Cumberland Police Department in Cumberland Maryland for allegedly failing to stop before turning out of a gas station parking lot after his initial conversation with the officers Mr love began to record the interaction and we will begin our review of this encounter about 2 minutes after he began to film they call all these police nothing tell me I pull the out the sheets parking lot when there's oncom and traffic time I Ain make a complete stop why would I make a complete stop when there's oncoming traffic that just sound stupid he pulled in the parking lot the whole time watching me we're going to do a scan of the vehicle so you don't mind step out of the vehicle what for what have I been suspected of committing a crime we we can scan any vehicle we want as long as but have I suspected commit the crimeal reason so that's a traffic stop that's a traffic issue do me favor step out the write me a ticket so I can go by my way I'm not stepping out the vehicle bro I didn't do nothing I didn't do absolutely nothing St out if you pull me out this vehicle I'm going to file a lawsuit bro you violate my rights do if you don't step out I will out the car well you going to have to take me out I'm not I'm not legally getting out my vehicle when I haven't done anything wrong I pulled over the other morning going to work for my headlight right I fixed it I just came from I just came from my house get gas got me a soda got my oil change I seend you pulling to the cheets I bought in the car the whole time I don't know why y'all keep pulling me over I'm out here working cuz I'm in a union that's why I got Mississippi tag that's the whole reason you pulling me over although the officers claimed that they stopped him for a traffic violation Mr love argues that the officers did not have a valid reason to initiate a traffic stop and we pulling him over to investigate him due to his outof state license plate as we've discussed before on ATA the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of so-called pretextual traffic stops in the 1996 case of Ren versus United States where it determined that an officer's subjective motive does not invalidate an objectively reasonable stop based on probable cause that a driver had violated the traffic code finding that the Constitutional reasonableness of traffic stops does not depend on now quoting the actual motivations of the individual officers involved and that now quoting again subjective intentions Play No role in ordinary probable cause Fourth Amendment analysis therefore even if the officer stopped Mr love because of his outof state plate a court would almost certainly uphold the constitutionality of the traffic stop if it concluded that the officers also had probable cause to believe that he violated the traffic code however as Mr love claimed that he did stop before turning it is important to note that if a court determined that the officers did not have the probable cause or Reasonable Suspicion necessary to conduct a lawful traffic stop well then any evidence that was discovered from the canine sniff would be inadmissible in court under the so-called fruit of the poisonous tree Doctrine in order for evidence to be admissible in court in a criminal prosecution it typically must be obtained legally although there are some exceptions as the Supreme Court explained in the 2016 case of Utah versus strafe quote in the 20th century the exclusionary rule the rule that often requires trial courts to exclude unlawfully seized evidence in a criminal trial became the principal judicial remedy to deter Fourth Amendment violations the fruit of the poisonous tree Doctrine is an extension of the exclusionary rule and as the Supreme Court also noted in the strafe case quote the exclusionary rule encompasses both the primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal seizure and evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality the so-called fruit of the poisonous tree likewise the the fourth Circuit Court of Appeals which has jurisdiction over Maryland stated in the 1992 case of United States versus Russia that quote if the initial traffic stop was illegal the seized Contraband is excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree Doctrine applying this principle to Mr Love's situation if the initial traffic stop seizure was unconstitutional then any evidence discovered during the traffic stop including as a result of a dog sniff would likely be inadmissible even if the court determined that the dog sniff was properly conducted I drive the other car you pull me over in it you pull my old lady over and it all right well if you ridiculous you step out we're going to scan the car we what you going to scan the car for you can look and see there ain't nothing in the car okay are you giving me consent to search the vehicle no I'm not giving you nothing okay then step out of the vehicle no I'm not call your supervisor man call your supervisor I want to speak to your supervisor please call your supervisor call your supervis call your supervisor I'm telling you pull me out the car you up you're making it mistake legal reason you stopped me cuz you said I pulled out no you didn't come to the car and said sir you smell like alcohol you smell like marijuana none of that go to your car and then 10 Police pull up like I'm supposed to be scared or something I didn't been through this plenty of my life I'm not stepping out of by now you're being recorded we're being recorded So than welcome to record I know I am that's my right too okay so I WR let me roll down the window for him so he can see he can smell everything's clean is my work vehicle you see my fishing pose I like the fish yeah look in there ain't nothing in here but work to fishing pose a battery from my truck that I just sold charg it up for this guy if you have nothing abely wor about you can let them do their job here and you can go about your business they can scan the car around I'm not getting out though once a dog alerts they it ain't going to alert well that that you just automatically saying the dog's going to alert that's what you're saying you on camera I said if no you're pretty much telling that that's I said if the dog Al that's like you're pretty much saying you you just telling me what you going to do whether wait it don't matter what y'all do man you you just going to violate the right you can open the back door and let them in if you want they searching to put the K9 around the car y'all what reason I don't know didn't say anything about nothing when he pulled me over but all of a sudden he want me out of my vehicle to search my car when I have done anything wrong speaking to the camera Mr love states that the officers want to search his vehicle when he has done nothing wrong in the 1983 case of United States versus place the Supreme Court held that the exposure of an individual's luggage which was located in a public place to a canine sniff quote did not constitute a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment in reaching this conclusion the court reasoned that although quote the fourth amendment protects people from unreasonable government intrusion into their legitimate expectations of privacy a dog sniff is now quoting again much less intrusive than a typical search because it does not require opening the luggage or exposing non-c Contraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view the court also recognized that quote the sniff discloses only the presence or absence of Narcotics a Contraband item and that now quoting again this limited disclosure also ensures that the owner of the property is not subjected to the embarrassment and inconvenience entailed in less discriminate and more intrusive investigative methods building on this decision the Supreme Court concluded in the 2000 case of city of Indianapolis versus Edmund that walking a Narcotics detection dog around the exterior of a vehicle also did not constitute a fourth amendment search because quote just as in place an exterior sniff of an automobile does not require entry into the car and is not designed to disclose any information other than the presence or absence of Narcotics likewise in the 2005 case of Illinois versus Cabas the Supreme Court determined that quote the use of a well-trained Narcotics detection dog one that does not expose non-c Contraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view during a lawful traffic stop generally does not implicate legitimate privacy interests and that when a dog sniff is performed on the exterior of a vehicle during a lawful seizure for a traffic violation quote any intrusion on privacy expectations does not rise to the level of of a constitutionally cognizable infringement therefore the court concluded that quote a dog sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment viewers should note that a dog sniff during a traffic stop is not constitutional if the underlying seizure of the vehicle violates the Fourth Amendment and we will discuss the constitutionality of the traffic stop in this interaction later in the episode however for now it is important to understand that even though the purpose of drug detection dogs is to identify illegal substances based on Supreme Court president K9 sniffs are not considered to be searches under the Fourth Amendment this is my work vehicle I fish in it I just got a oil change look and he going to tell me I pull out of the sheets without stopping when there's oncoming traffic what sense does that make yes sir I'm the K9 guy yep I just scanned the vehicle he alerted didn't no yeah cuz I obviously now cuz I mentioned he was he didn't the way y'all treat people out here for absolutely nothing is ridiculous and it has nothing to do with you personally careful he's been cool you can finish what you was telling me uh so Sor uh cut you off bro so like I said dog didn't alert to the vehicle but I always interview anybody after I scan whether the dog alerts or not yeah just cuz I want to make sure the dog's doing what he's supposed to so there's never been any drugs in the car or nothing like that no all right work for me no drugs in the car sir this is my work car officer balouch leads the canine around the vehicle while the other officers observe and when the dog does not alert he confirms with Mr love that there have never been any drugs in the car as we discussed earlier in this episode the Supreme Court determined in the Cabas case that a dog sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment however the court clarified that quote a seizure that is Justified ifed 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 and that the dog sniff in question was only legal because quote the duration of the stop in this case was entirely justified by the traffic offense and the ordinary inquiries incident to such a stop relying on the reasoning in the kabas case the Supreme Court held in the 2015 case of Rodriguez versus United States that quote a police stop exceed feeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution's Shield against unreasonable seizures and that absent independent Reasonable articulable Suspicion of additional criminal activity a traffic stop Justified only by a police observed traffic violation cannot be extended in order to conduct a dog sniff in the Rodriguez case a dog sniff was conducted after the officer issued a written warning and otherwise completed the related inquiries of the traffic stop extending the seed seizure by S or 8 minutes however the court clarified that the rule did not apply only to dog sniffs conducted after the issuance of a citation and instead stated that quote the critical question is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket but whether conducting the sniff prolongs I.E adds time to the stop in the 2011 case of partlo versus State the court of special appeals of Maryland explained that quote the use of a drug sniffing dog is a perfectly legitimate utilization of a free investigative bonus to a valid traffic stop so long as the traffic stop is still genuinely in progress when the dog alerts to the presence of Narcotics likewise in the 2018 case of St versus State the same court reaffirmed that quote if the officer issuing the citation is diligently and legitimately still working on citations when the K9 unit arrives the traffic stop is still ongoing and the detention will be considered reasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes the Court also explored different cases when canine sniffs had been upheld including a sniff that took place while the deputy who initiated the stop was still running the defendant's license and registration and an alert that occurred before the officer had received the results of the registration and license check and ultimately concluded that an 8-minute wait for a dog sniff was not an undue delay because one officer was still writing the citation while another officer conducted the canine scan of the vehicle now in this situation the same officer that eventually issued issued a written warning to Mr love was involved in the sniff process and while he did not lead the canine around the vehicle he stood and observed while officer balouch conducted the scan and did not appear to be working on Mr Love's warning or other related processes during this time therefore if a court determined that he abandoned the underlying traffic related purposes of the stop to assist with the canine sniff well then it is likely that it would also conclude that the traffic stop was unlawfully extended of course there may be addition facts at play that could sway a Court's opinion and in deciding the constitutionality of this dog sniff a court would conduct a detailed review of the actions each officer took during the stop to determine whether the seizure of Mr love and his vehicle was unlawfully extended where you work at I work for triton construction you see that that um one way they putting in downtown I work for that company okay so sorry what your warning here that's another warning I've done nothing I don't feel like another warning here's your warning yep here's your information yep have a good day yep I'm on my way to the pr now file me a lawsuit after the dog failed to detect any drugs the officers issued a written warning to Mr love and concluded the traffic stop after Mr love had filmed for about 13 minutes it is unclear whether Mr love intends to file a complaint against the officers involved or pursue legal action although he did suggest that he would file a lawsuit several times during the encounter overall the Cumberland officer ERS get a c for maintaining a generally condescending demeanor throughout the encounter and likely extending the traffic stop without Reasonable Suspicion the officers also claim that they can scan any vehicle they want during a traffic stop without mentioning that they cannot extend the traffic stop to do so and although this may have simply been an omission of speech the fact that the officers likely unconstitutionally extended this traffic stop by not diligently working on Mr Love's warning leads me to believe that it's more likely that they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the law additionally I cannot say for certain whether Mr love stopped before exiting the gas station but the officers certainly seem to be more concerned with finding drugs than enforcing the traffic code as one officer even admitted during the stop that he did not write tickets that being said the Supreme Court has determined that police officers do not violate the constitution by initiating pretextual traffic stops or conducting canine sniffs during lawful traffic stops and while I certainly do not approve of these invasive investigative practices they are technically legal this encounter demonstrates the ways that judicial decisions can often Overlook the practicalities of everyday life and I believe that the pretextual Stop and dog sniff decisions that we discussed in this episode leave a significant amount of room for officer abuse when put into practice Mr love gets a B minus because although he voiced his concerns about the officer's conduct in a strong but respect ful manner he did not exit the vehicle when he was likely legally obligated to do so and he seemingly consented to additional searches of the vehicle he also demonstrated some level of misunderstanding regarding when officers can conduct canine sniffs during traffic stops by arguing that they must suspect him of a crime before they can use a canine when in fact they only need Reasonable Suspicion to extend the traffic stop not to conduct the sniff in the first place as we have discussed many times here on ATA the Supreme Court has held that officers May order individuals to step out of their vehicles as a matter of course during a traffic stop and while I empathize with Mr Love's desire to maintain control of the situation by staying in the vehicle I would encourage him to follow such orders in the future in order to avoid potential legal charges or physical intervention from law enforcement and while I cannot fault Mr love for not being aware of the fine nuances of the case law regarding can9 sniffs as an average citizen as he appears to have an interest in protecting his con tional rights I would suggest that he take steps to learn more about how courts have determined the Constitution applies to this type of encounter let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic that you would like us to discuss in the comments below thank you for watching and don't forget to check out my second channel for even more police interaction content [Music]