STATE v. FEEKEN
2016 OK CR 6
Okla. Crim. App.2016Background
- Early morning encounter on July 19, 2014: Deputy Ferguson found Feeken standing by a motorcycle in a closed-business parking lot and approached to check on his welfare.
- Ferguson obtained Feeken’s driver’s license and ran records checks; discovered the motorcycle lacked required liability insurance.
- Ferguson decided to impound the uninsured motorcycle and called for assistance. Hinton Officer Geraughty and a certified drug‑sniffing dog arrived within minutes.
- Feeken consented to a search of a bag but refused a search of a vehicle compartment; the canine alerted on the motorcycle’s rear compartment.
- Ferguson searched the compartment, found methamphetamine and a pipe, and arrested Feeken. The entire encounter (initial approach to canine arrival) took about six minutes.
- Procedural posture: District Court granted Feeken’s motion to suppress; Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the encounter and canine sniff were reasonable and lawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Feeken) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was deployment of a certified drug‑sniffing dog during a non‑traffic encounter supported by reasonable suspicion/probable cause? | Canine deployment was justified by officers’ reasonable suspicion and the dog’s alert provided probable cause to search. | Canine deployment during a non‑traffic, investigatory encounter was an unlawful search absent sufficient justification. | Held: Canine deployment was reasonable; the dog’s indication provided probable cause. |
| 2. Was Feeken illegally detained when officers extended the encounter to impound the uninsured motorcycle? | Initial encounter was lawful; discovery of lack of insurance justified impoundment and any related investigatory steps. | Extension of the encounter to deploy the dog and search exceeded the permissible scope and became an unlawful detention/search. | Held: The initial encounter and subsequent actions (calling for assistance, canine sniff) were reasonably related in scope and duration; no illegal detention. |
| 3. Is impoundment/inventory a lawful administrative procedure that would have led to discovery anyway (inevitable discovery)? | Impoundment authorized by statute; inventory procedures are administrative and not a Fourth Amendment search, so discovery would have been inevitable. | Even if impoundment lawful, using a dog and searching compartments without consent exceeded inventory scope. | Held: Impoundment/inventory is a reasonable administrative task; inevitable discovery and lawful procedures support admissibility. |
| 4. Did the short duration and circumstances transform a consensual encounter into an unconstitutional seizure? | The encounter was brief (~6 minutes), officers acted promptly, and any extension was supported by circumstances (vehicle uninsured, refusal to allow compartment inspection). | Short duration does not excuse an investigatory seizure without independent reasonable suspicion. | Held: Encounter remained reasonable in inception and scope; no unconstitutional seizure occurred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (framework for evaluating investigatory stops and scope of intrusion)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (vehicle inventory after impoundment is not a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) (canine sniff of luggage is sui generis and not a search under certain circumstances)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (inevitable discovery doctrine)
- State v. Paul, 62 P.3d 389 (Okla. Crim. App. 2003) (Oklahoma application of Terry principles to canine sniffs and investigatory encounters)
- Coffia v. State, 191 P.3d 594 (Okla. Crim. App. 2008) (review standard for suppression rulings)