State of Arizona v. Rusty James Driscoll, 361 P.3d 961

Background

At ~2:40 a.m., DPS officer stopped Rusty Driscoll for a malfunctioning license-plate light, issued a repair order, and engaged in brief conversation.
Based on evasive answers, the officer suspected criminal activity but, after completing the repair citation, deployed a certified K-9 to sniff Driscoll’s truck. The dog alerted.
Officer searched the vehicle, found drug paraphernalia and a stolen handgun; after arresting Driscoll, a subsequent search of his person yielded methamphetamine.
Driscoll moved to suppress evidence; the trial court denied the motion, a jury convicted him of possession of a dangerous drug and possession of drug paraphernalia, and a second jury found aggravators for sentencing.
This court originally affirmed; the Arizona Supreme Court vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of Rodriguez v. United States (holding a traffic stop may not be extended, absent reasonable suspicion, to allow a dog sniff).
On remand this court concluded Rodriguez was violated (stop was extended after citation was completed), but suppression was unwarranted under Davis because the officer reasonably relied on controlling Arizona precedent (State v. Box) and the intrusion was minimal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the traffic stop was unconstitutionally extended to allow a dog sniff	Driscoll: Officer lacked reasonable suspicion; stop was completed when citation issued and dog sniff unlawfully prolonged detention	State: Stop was not unduly prolonged; dog sniff was a de minimis intrusion consistent with precedent	Court: Rodriguez violated — stop was extended after completion of traffic stop, so extension was unconstitutional
Whether evidence from the dog-sniff/search must be suppressed despite Rodriguez	Driscoll: Evidence should be suppressed because extension violated Fourth Amendment	State: Under Davis, exclusionary rule doesn't apply where officer reasonably relied on binding precedent (Box) and the conduct was nonculpable	Court: Suppression not required — officer reasonably relied on then-controlling Arizona precedent (Box); exclusionary rule inapplicable under Davis
Whether prior Arizona precedents supported the officer's conduct	Driscoll: Earlier cases did not permit the dog sniff after completion of a stop (cites Rogers)	State: Box and federal precedent (Caballes) permitted a brief dog sniff as de minimis; officer acted reasonably	Court: Rogers inapplicable; Box was controlling and justified officer’s conduct at the time
Whether any other suppression doctrines or arguments bar admission (waiver)	Driscoll: Raised Rodriguez-based suppression claim on remand	State: Many suppression/time-of-stop arguments were waived on initial appeal; but court considered Rodriguez issue on remand	Court: Waiver existed for some arguments but, on Rodriguez issue, court reached merits and applied Davis to decline suppression

Key Cases Cited

Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (traffic stop may not be extended, absent reasonable suspicion, to conduct a dog sniff)
Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011) (exclusionary rule does not apply to searches conducted in reasonable reliance on binding precedent)
State v. Box, 205 Ariz. 492 (App. 2003) (Arizona precedent allowing brief/de minimis dog-sniff extension during traffic stop)
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (dog sniff during lawful traffic stop not a Fourth Amendment search absent unreasonable prolongation)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusionary rule inapplicable where police misconduct is the result of isolated negligence)
Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006) (exclusionary rule is a last resort; costs of suppression must be weighed)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (search-incident-to-arrest limits; cited but not dispositive here)
State v. Rogers, 186 Ariz. 508 (1996) (investigatory stop lacking reasonable suspicion; inapposite because it did not involve post-stop dog sniff)