State v. West, 2015 Ohio 442

On Nov. 15, 2013, Trooper Kyle Pohlable observed a southbound vehicle in a high-crime/drug area; occupants looked away, which he found suspicious, and he began following the car.
Pohlable visually estimated the car at ~40 mph in a 30-mph zone, then set his cruiser speedometer to 40 mph and paced the car for ~1/4 mile, observing speeds of 40–41 mph before stopping it at 11:02 a.m.
After stopping the vehicle, Pohlable saw signs he believed indicated narcotic intoxication in the passenger (West): drooping head, red/restricted pupils, slurred speech, shaking hands; he did not detect alcohol odor.
Pohlable experienced a delay verifying the driver’s information because his cruiser computer was backed up; while waiting he called for backup and later requested a canine unit (requested at 11:15 a.m.; canine arrived at 11:30 a.m.).
The drug dog alerted and officers found contraband heroin on West; she was indicted for possession (<1 gram) and moved to suppress evidence as the stop and subsequent detention were unlawful.
The trial court granted suppression, finding the initial stop relied on an unaided visual speed estimate and that pacing was unsupported; the State appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legality of traffic stop (was there reasonable suspicion/speed measurement)	Trooper paced the vehicle using his cruiser speedometer (an acceptable mechanical device); pacing produced 40–41 mph, supporting a speeding stop.	Stop relied on unaided visual speed estimation; pacing is not a reliable/authorized method under R.C. 4511.091(C)(1).	The court held pacing with the cruiser speedometer is an acceptable mechanical means to determine speed; the stop was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion.
Whether detention was unreasonably prolonged by calling and waiting for a drug dog	Officer noticed indicia of narcotics impairment and, given computer delay and other factors, developed reasonable suspicion to expand the inquiry and summon a canine; the dog arrived without unreasonable delay.	Even if stop was initially lawful, officer unlawfully prolonged the stop beyond mission of issuing citation to conduct a dog sniff; delay was unreasonable.	The court held officer developed reasonable suspicion of drug activity during the stop, the canine was summoned within a reasonable time, and the detention was not unreasonably prolonged.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (stop-and-frisk/brief investigative detention standard: reasonable, articulable suspicion)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (pretextual traffic stops are lawful where officer has probable cause to stop for a traffic offense)
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (use of a properly deployed drug-sniffing dog during a lawful traffic stop does not implicate the Fourth Amendment absent unreasonable prolongation)