Thomas J. Davis v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
484 S.W.3d 288
| Ky. | 2016Background
- Officer McCoy stopped Davis after seeing his vehicle cross the center line multiple times and observing an open beer can; McCoy suspected DUI and intended to verify sobriety.
- McCoy administered two field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test; Davis passed the field tests and the breath test registered no alcohol.
- Davis refused consent to search his vehicle; McCoy then deployed Chico, a trained narcotics-detection dog, to sniff the exterior of the vehicle.
- After a 1–2 minute sniff, Chico alerted to the vehicle; officers then conducted a search, found methamphetamine on Davis and in the car, and arrested him; Davis later confessed after Miranda warnings.
- Davis moved to suppress the physical evidence and his statements, arguing the traffic stop was unlawfully extended to conduct the dog sniff after the DUI inquiry was complete; the trial court denied suppression and Davis entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop was unlawfully extended by a dog sniff after DUI investigation concluded | Davis: After passing sobriety tests, the stop’s mission was complete; prolonging the stop for a dog sniff required independent reasonable suspicion and was unlawful | Commonwealth: Stop was ongoing (open container/reckless driving unresolved); brief detention was reasonable and the evidence would have been inevitably discovered | Court reversed: The sniff prolonged the stop beyond its purpose without new reasonable suspicion, violating Rodriguez; evidence must be suppressed |
| Whether the dog sniff itself implicates the Fourth Amendment | Davis: Nonconsensual sniff used to detect unrelated criminal activity and cannot extend the stop absent suspicion | Commonwealth: Canine sniffs during a lawful traffic stop are permissible; short delay was de minimis | Court: Canine sniffs are permissible only if conducted during the time required for the stop’s mission; no de minimis exception to prolongation per Rodriguez |
| Whether inevitable discovery doctrine saves the evidence | Davis: Discovery was not inevitable because arrest was not certain; McCoy might have issued a warning or citation instead | Commonwealth: Officer could have lawfully arrested for reckless driving/open container, searched incident to arrest or inventory/warrant would have found drugs | Court: Commonwealth did not meet its burden; discovery was not inevitable under the record |
| Whether trial court’s duration-based analysis cures Fourth Amendment violation | Davis: Duration alone is not dispositive; the critical test is whether sniff added time beyond the stop’s mission | Commonwealth: Short overall detention (13 minutes) makes it reasonable | Court: Rodriguez controls — even brief prolongation unrelated to the stop’s purpose is unlawful; duration alone insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (officer may not extend traffic stop beyond its mission to conduct dog sniff absent reasonable suspicion)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (canine sniff during otherwise lawful stop is permissible if it does not prolong the stop)
- Epps v. Commonwealth, 295 S.W.3d 807 (Ky. 2009) (held prolonged detention for dog sniff exceeded permissible scope of traffic stop)
- Turley v. Commonwealth, 399 S.W.3d 412 (Ky. 2013) (detention beyond stop’s purpose requires reasonable, articulable suspicion of other criminal activity)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (established inevitable discovery doctrine)