State v. Duke, 2013 Ohio 743

Traffic stop on Jan. 26, 2011 on the Ohio Turnpike for a missing license plate light.
Duke was unable to promptly produce registration/insurance; he appeared nervous and agitated.
Trooper placed Duke in the back of a cruiser to verify operative status of the vehicle.
A second trooper with a K-9 conducted a free-air sniff around the vehicle; the dog allegedly alerted near the gas tank.
Search of the vehicle revealed cocaine in a small bag tucked inside a potato-chips bag on the front passenger seat.
Duke moved to suppress the evidence; the trial court granted the motion, based on K-9 reliability issues raised sua sponte; the State appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the suppression should be granted for an unreasonable stop duration	Duke	State contends duration was excessive	Remanded on second issue; moot for this issue
Whether the suppression was proper because the K-9 reliability was not properly raised by Duke	State	State was not put on notice; no opportunity to respond on K-9 credibility	Second assignment sustained; remanded for supplemental hearing on K-9 credibility

Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (U.S. Supreme Court 1971) (per se unreasonable searches subject to narrow exceptions)
Xenia v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 216 (Ohio 1988) (prosecutor must know grounds of challenge to suppress evidence; defendant must state grounds with sufficient particularity)
State v. Shindler, 70 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio 1994) (grounds for suppression must be stated with particularity; notice to state/court required)
State v. Carlson, 102 Ohio App.3d 585 (9th Dist. Ohio 1995) (remand when trial court’s findings on credibility are unclear; legitimacy of stop's length tied to dog alert)
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (U.S. Supreme Court 1983) (investigative stop duration limited to what is necessary to fulfill its purpose)