Felders v. Bairett, 885 F. Supp. 2d 1191

Ms. Felders, an African-American woman, was stopped for speeding on I-15 near Cedar City, Utah, with two passengers.
During the stop, she was detained for a canine sniff after initial questioning and her documents were held for a dog unit.
Duke, a narcotics-detecting dog, allegedly alerted to drugs, leading to a vehicle search that found no contraband.
Plaintiffs allege unlawful seizure, unlawful search, and racial profiling; defendants move for summary judgment.
The court grants summary judgment for seizure and racial profiling claims against Trooper Bairett, denies summary judgment on the search claim against Bairett due to disputed facts about Duke’s alert and handler actions, and denies summary judgment for Deputy Malcom on all grounds due to material factual disputes.
The case centers on whether the dog entry into the vehicle was illegal and whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause, including whether qualified immunity applies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the detention/seizure during the stop reasonable?	Felders argued the prolonged detention without articulable suspicion violated the Fourth Amendment.	Bairett contends ongoing questioning was permissible under stop-related authority.	Seizure was reasonable; continued detention supported by reasonable suspicion.
Was the search of Felders' vehicle permissible given Duke's sniff entry?	Duke’s entry into the vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment and Trooper Bairett facilitated it.	Dog sniff was permissible after reasonable suspicion; fact disputes remain about alert timing.	Summary judgment denied on the search claim due to disputed facts about Duke’s alert and entry facilitation.
Did Bairett or Malcom engage in racial profiling?	The stop and extended detention were driven by Felders' race.	No clear evidence that race played a determinative role; actions based on behavior and inconsistencies.	Racial profiling claim granted summary judgment in favor of Bairett (plaintiffs failed to show clear discriminatory purpose/effect).
Are Bairett and Malcom entitled to qualified immunity?	There was a violation of a clearly established right to be free from unlawful search and seizure.	Qualified immunity applies unless clearly established that their conduct violated rights.	Bairett denied qualified immunity on the search; Malcom denied on multiple theories due to disputed facts; overall qualified immunity not granted to either based on record.

United States v. Kitchell, 653 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2011) (limits on questioning during stops; permissible scope of stop questions)
United States v. Davis, 636 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 2011) (stop duration and when consents or suspicions may extend detention)
United States v. Stone, 866 F.2d 359 (10th Cir. 1989) (dog sniffing at open hatchback; concerns about entering vehicle with no probable cause)
United States v. Winningham, 140 F.3d 1328 (10th Cir. 1998) (dog entering vehicle after officer opened door; improper search if active encouragement or door opening)
Kokinda v. Peterson, 245 Fed.Appx. 751 (10th Cir. 2007) (pre-2008 precedent on whether a dog entering a vehicle is an improper search if actions are not facilitated by officer)