Search and Seizure — dog sniffs — scope

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Search and Seizure — dog sniffs — scope

Where an officer conducted a dog sniff after giving the driver of the vehicle a warning for suspended registration, the evidence must be suppressed.

“Here, unlike in Arias, the dog sniff attendant to House’s seizure occurred after Hoell had completed everything related to the initial stop. Hoell ran House’s license and conducted the dog sniff after he gave House back his license and issued him a warning. See State v. Jones, 2005 WI App 26, ¶22, 278 Wis. 2d 774, 693 N.W.2d 104 (traffic stop ended with the issuance of the warning citation and return of the defendant’s and the driver’s identification cards).”

“Here, the undisputed facts establish that the reasons justifying the initial stop ceased to exist because the purpose of the stop had been resolved. Therefore, Hoell’s continued detention of House to conduct the dog sniff was not reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying the stop. Because Hoell gave House no choice in the matter when he conducted the dog sniff, a reasonable person in House’s place would not have felt free to leave. State v. Williams, 2002 WI 94, ¶22 n.6, 255 Wis. 2d 1, 646 N.W. 2d 834 (an individual is unlawfully seized if a reasonable person in his or her position would not feel free to leave or to decline the officer’s further requests).”

Reversed and Remanded.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2012AP2414-CR State v. House

Dist. II, Ozaukee County, Malloy, J., Neubauer, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Hagner, Brian C., Greenfield; For Respondent: Gerol, Adam Y., Port Washington; Noet, Nancy A., Madison