FUENTES v. STATE, 517 P.3d 971

In June 2016 two reliable confidential informants told Detective Chad Cook that Pedro Fuentes and family were trafficking meth; Cook corroborated via a domestic-disturbance call where officers observed meth and cash.
Cook obtained a warrant to install an electronic tracking device on Fuentes’ car and monitored the vehicle to and from Phoenix, a known drug distribution hub.
Cook relayed make/model/tag and his suspicion that Fuentes was returning with a drug load and asked local officers to stop the car for observable traffic violations.
On July 16, 2016 Sgt. John Ricketts observed Fuentes commit traffic violations, stopped him, ran checks, and wrote a ticket; Ricketts retained the driver while calling for backup and a K9.
A drug dog alerted to the vehicle and officers found ~4,441 grams of meth in a duffel; Fuentes admitted ownership but moved to suppress, arguing the stop was unlawfully extended without reasonable suspicion personal to Ricketts.
The district court denied suppression; the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding the collective-knowledge/fellow-officer doctrine allowed Ricketts to rely on Cook’s reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop for a K9 sniff.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an officer may extend a traffic stop based on reasonable suspicion known only to other officers (collective-knowledge/fellow-officer rule)	Fuentes: Ricketts lacked personal reasonable suspicion to detain him beyond the traffic-stop purpose; Ricketts could not rely solely on information held by other officers to prolong the stop.	State: Detective Cook had reasonable suspicion from CI information and investigation; under the collective-knowledge doctrine Cook’s suspicion could be imputed to Ricketts who was asked to stop the car.	The court held Cook’s reasonable suspicion was vertically imputed to Ricketts under the collective-knowledge/fellow-officer rule; the extended detention for a K9 sniff was lawful and suppression was not required.

Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972) (officer may act on information supplied by others; no requirement of personal observation).
Hensley v. United States, 469 U.S. 221 (1985) (officers may act on information from fellow officers without cross‑examining their basis).
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (reasonableness assessed under the totality of the circumstances).
State v. Iven, 335 P.3d 264 (Okla. Crim. App. 2014) (explaining and applying the collective‑knowledge/fellow‑officer doctrine in Oklahoma).
Seabolt v. State, 152 P.3d 235 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (traffic stop is a seizure; scope and duration must relate to purpose and last no longer than necessary).
Holt v. State, 506 P.2d 561 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973) (early Oklahoma recognition of the fellow‑officer rule).
United States v. Whitley, 680 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing vertical and horizontal applications of collective knowledge).