Shayquan Quantae Marshall v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 2053152

On July 22, 2014, Detective Milton stopped Marshall for a traffic violation and an obstructing rearview-mirror item in an area known for street-level narcotics.
Detective Melton, who recognized Marshall from prior drug arrests, told Milton (while Milton returned to his patrol car) that Marshall was likely a narcotics offender and recommended a K9; Milton radioed for a K9 unit.
Officer Robinson was dispatched, arrived within minutes, spoke briefly with Milton, and removed her drug-detection dog; the dog immediately alerted to the driver’s side at 11:44 a.m.
After the alert, Marshall admitted to having drugs; police recovered individually wrapped crack cocaine sewn into the fly of his shorts.
Marshall moved to suppress, arguing the officer unlawfully prolonged the traffic stop by (1) Melton’s comments about criminal history, (2) Milton’s call for a K9, and (3) Milton’s conversation with Robinson.
The trial court denied suppression; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding any unrelated delay de minimis and the evidence admissible under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

Issue	Marshall's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether Melton’s and Milton’s conversation about Marshall’s criminal history unlawfully prolonged the stop	The exchange constituted an unrelated deviation that extended the stop without reasonable suspicion	The comment was brief, occurred as part of Milton returning to his cruiser, and related to officer safety; not a deviation	Not a deviation; brief and tied to officer safety — lawful
Whether Milton’s call for a K9 unlawfully prolonged the stop	Calling the dog was unrelated and caused a measurable delay that required suppression	The call was placed before Milton completed traffic tasks and did not measurably delay the stop	No measurable delay; de minimis and lawful under prevailing precedent
Whether Milton’s conversation with Robinson on arrival unlawfully prolonged the stop	The on-scene discussion interrupted and extended the traffic stop beyond its mission	The conversation was brief (one–two minutes) and coincided with routine traffic investigation tasks	At most a two-minute delay; de minimis in the total 14-minute encounter — lawful

Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (limits on extending traffic stops absent reasonable suspicion)
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (use of a drug dog during lawful traffic stop where duration not extended)
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (scope of inquiries during a traffic stop; must not measurably extend stop)
McCain v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 546 (standard of review for mixed questions of law and fact)
Matthews v. Commonwealth, 65 Va. App. 334 (analyzed de minimis deviations prior to Rodriguez)
United States v. Mason, 628 F.3d 123 (4th Cir.) (one–two minute unrelated delay in an 11-minute stop was slight)
United States v. Alexander, 448 F.3d 1014 (8th Cir.) (four-minute extension of a twenty-minute stop upheld)
United States v. Martin, 411 F.3d 998 (8th Cir.) (two-minute delay is de minimis)
United States v. Purcell, 236 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir.) (three-minute delay during a fourteen-minute stop was de minimis)