In the Matter of Property Seized From Robert Pardee, Robert Pardee
2015 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 101
| Iowa | 2015Background
- Trooper Vander Weil stopped a California-plated Toyota on I-80 for minor traffic violations during an interdiction operation focused on out‑of‑state cars; Robert Pardee was the passenger.
- The trooper engaged in extended questioning of driver John Saccento and Pardee, conducted warrant/criminal-history checks, and prepared warnings; he later told them they were free to go after about 25 minutes.
- Despite saying they were free to go, the trooper detained them while he summoned a narcotics K‑9; the dog alerted and a subsequent search uncovered marijuana, $33,100 in cash, and alleged drug-sale records.
- Pardee was acquitted in a criminal prosecution for possession but the State pursued forfeiture of the cash; the district court denied Pardee’s suppression motion in the forfeiture action based on res judicata, and then ordered the cash forfeited.
- The court of appeals affirmed on the merits; the Iowa Supreme Court granted review, held res judicata did not apply, and reversed suppression denial because the trooper unlawfully prolonged the stop in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Pardee's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preclusive effect of prior criminal suppression ruling | Prior denial in criminal case should not preclude suppression in forfeiture because Pardee was acquitted and the suppression ruling was not essential to conviction | Denial in criminal case bars relitigation in forfeiture via res judicata/collateral estoppel | No preclusive effect; issue preclusion does not apply because prior ruling was not necessary to final judgment (acquittal) |
| Validity of prolonging traffic stop for dog sniff | Trooper impermissibly prolonged a traffic stop beyond time needed to issue warnings; dog sniff therefore unlawful under Rodriguez | Trooper had, or rapidly developed, reasonable suspicion during the stop that justified continued detention and the dog sniff | Stop was unlawfully prolonged (~25 minutes vs ~10–12 minutes reasonably required); reasonable suspicion arose only after the impermissible prolongation, so detention violated Fourth Amendment |
| Reliability of K‑9 alert supporting search | Dog handler and Nellie’s certification/training were insufficient to validate the alert given the unconstitutional detention | K‑9 handler testified to training, certification, and successful deployments; alert justified search | Court did not reach merits of K‑9 reliability because Fourth Amendment violation required suppression |
| Equal protection / pretextual stop targeting out‑of‑state plates | Targeting out‑of‑state vehicles for interdiction violated equal protection and right to interstate travel | Pretextual stops for traffic violations to facilitate investigation are permissible; no equal protection violation | Court declined to decide these claims after resolving Fourth Amendment prolongation issue (reversed on that ground) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (traffic‑stop authority ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are completed; prolongation for unrelated investigation requires independent reasonable suspicion)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (a dog sniff during a lawful traffic stop that does not prolong the stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Briasco, 640 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2011) (upheld post‑ticket detention for sniff where multiple factors supported reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Beck, 140 F.3d 1129 (8th Cir. 1998) (similar travel/vehicle factors did not supply reasonable suspicion to continue detention)
- United States v. Peralez, 526 F.3d 1115 (8th Cir. 2008) (off‑topic questioning that more than doubled detention time unlawfully extended the stop)
- State v. Eubanks, 355 N.W.2d 57 (Iowa 1984) (odor of marijuana can supply probable cause to search)