People v. Heritsch
98 N.E.3d 420
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Jan. 24, 2014, Officer Zapf stopped Ken Heritsch for crossing the fog line after a report of a possibly impaired driver; video with timestamps recorded events.
- Zapf checked Heritsch’s license and criminal history and began preparing a warning; other officers arrived and Heritsch refused consent to a vehicle search.
- After a brief conversation with another officer, Zapf switched from issuing a warning to preparing a citation and radioed to summon a drug-detection K-9.
- Deputy Smyth arrived with Bosco, the drug dog, performed a free-air sniff of the vehicle, and Bosco alerted to areas inside the car.
- Following the sniff, officers searched the vehicle, found cannabis (over 10 g but under 30 g), and arrested Heritsch; Heritsch moved to suppress the evidence arguing the stop was unlawfully prolonged.
- The trial court denied suppression after a stipulated bench trial; Heritsch was convicted and sentenced to probation and county jail; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop was unlawfully prolonged by seeking consent and arranging a K-9, making the subsequent dog sniff unconstitutional | State: activities did not add meaningful time; officer was working at a normal pace and the dog alerted while citation still being completed | Heritsch: officer resolved the stop’s mission and then diverted attention to unrelated K-9 investigation, which prolonged the stop absent reasonable suspicion | Court: No unlawful prolongation — unrelated activity did not add time that extended the stop beyond when the K-9 alert provided probable cause |
| Whether a dog sniff during a stop is per se permissible | State: a dog sniff is permissible so long as it does not prolong the stop beyond its mission | Heritsch: dog sniff was an unrelated investigation that prolonged detention without reasonable suspicion | Court: Dog sniffs are permissible but may not prolong a stop; here sniff did not prolong the stop before the dog alerted |
| Effect of officer switching from warning to citation on reasonableness of duration | State: choice to cite does not depart from mission; preparatory tasks for citation were routine and timely | Heritsch: switching delayed completion of the stop and facilitated the K-9 arrival | Court: Choice to issue a citation was not a mission departure and did not materially extend the detention |
| Standard for assessing whether unrelated inquiries prolonged a stop | State: if the unrelated activity did not cause the stop to extend beyond when probable cause arose, it is lawful | Heritsch: any unrelated investigation that interrupts mission unlawfully prolongs the stop | Court: Applies Rodriguez — court looks at what police actually did; here, but-for test fails because citation would not have been completed before dog alerted, so no prolongation |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (K-9 sniff during lawful traffic stop does not violate Fourth Amendment absent prolongation)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (officer may not prolong a traffic stop beyond mission to conduct unrelated investigations; reasonableness depends on what police actually did)
- People v. Reedy, 2015 IL App (3d) 130955 (court declined to find unlawful prolongation where dog sniff occurred before ticket would have been completed)
- People v. Pulling, 2015 IL App (3d) 140516 (court found dog sniff prolonged stop where unrelated sniff occurred and would have added time)
- People v. Jarvis, 2016 IL App (2d) 141231 (standard of review on suppression rulings)
- People v. Neuberger, 2011 IL App (2d) 100379 (probable cause from dog alert justified search)
- People v. Nicholls, 71 Ill. 2d 166 (1978) (assessment of appellate costs)