Com. v. Urgent, D., 2829 EDA 2015

On June 1, 2014, Trooper Mercatili stopped Dennis Urgent for speeding (70 mph in a 55 mph zone) on I-78; during the stop the trooper smelled strong air fresheners and observed nervous behavior.
NCIC check revealed an outstanding Maryland warrant for Possession With Intent to Deliver Cocaine; Mercatili handcuffed Urgent and placed him in the patrol vehicle while confirming extradition.
Urgent refused consent to search; while awaiting confirmation from Maryland and a K-9 unit, officers cited Urgent for speeding and the K-9 later alerted on the vehicle.
A search produced about a pound of hydroponic marijuana in the trunk, a digital scale, two cell phones, a vaporizer, multiple air fresheners, and $830 cash.
Urgent moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the stop was impermissibly prolonged to conduct the canine sniff; the trial court denied suppression, Urgent was convicted by a jury on drug charges and later sentenced to 18–48 months.
At trial the trooper’s dash-cam footage no longer existed; Urgent requested a jury instruction about the missing video, which the court denied; Urgent did not timely object after the denial and appealed both rulings.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Urgent's Argument	Held
Whether the traffic stop was impermissibly prolonged to allow a K-9 sniff, rendering the subsequent search unconstitutional	Trooper had reasonable suspicion to continue the detention based on nervous behavior, strong air-freshener odor (possible masking agent), the outstanding MD warrant, expired license and lack of insurance; waiting for extradition and disposition of the vehicle kept the stop lawful	The stop was functionally over after the citation and could not be extended solely to await a canine sniff (relying on Rodriguez)	Denial of suppression affirmed: totality of circumstances gave reasonable suspicion and the stop remained ongoing due to warrant/vehicle-disposition concerns and extradition inquiry.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to give a jury instruction about the Commonwealth’s failure to preserve dash-cam footage	The Commonwealth notes Urgent did not preserve the objection at trial and the missing footage’s relevance to guilt was speculative	Urgent argued the failure to preserve warranted an adverse instruction even without bad faith because of prejudice from missing evidence	Issue waived: Urgent failed to object after the court denied the requested instruction and after the charge; appellate review declined on merits.

Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (canine sniff during a lawful traffic stop generally not a Fourth Amendment search)
Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (officers may not prolong a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff absent reasonable suspicion)
Commonwealth v. Rogers, 849 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 2004) (under PA Constitution, a canine sniff is a search requiring reasonable suspicion)
Commonwealth v. Lagenella, 83 A.3d 94 (Pa. 2013) (officer stopping a vehicle operated by someone without driving privileges must decide whether to immobilize or tow)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review for suppression rulings: accept suppression court’s factual findings if supported)
Commonwealth v. Sandusky, 77 A.3d 663 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for reviewing denial of requested jury instructions)
Commonwealth v. Pressley, 887 A.2d 220 (Pa. 2005) (a specific objection or exception is required to preserve a challenge to jury instructions at trial)
Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 82 A.3d 943 (Pa. 2013) (issues not raised in lower court are waived on appeal)