United States v. Dennys Rodriguez, 799 F.3d 1222

K-9 officer stopped Dennys Rodriguez for a traffic violation, issued a written warning, and requested consent to run a drug dog; Rodriguez refused consent.
After a second officer arrived, the officer walked the dog around Rodriguez’s vehicle; the dog alerted about seven to eight minutes after the warning was issued.
A subsequent search uncovered methamphetamine; Rodriguez was charged with intent to distribute 50+ grams methamphetamine.
Rodriguez moved to suppress, arguing the post-warning dog sniff unreasonably extended the traffic stop in violation of the Fourth Amendment; the magistrate, district court, and 8th Cir. panel initially denied suppression as the delay was de minimis under Eighth Circuit precedent.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari, held that extending a stop beyond the time needed to handle the traffic matter violates the Fourth Amendment, vacated the panel judgment, and remanded for reconsideration under that rule.
On remand the 8th Circuit affirmed the denial of suppression, holding the exclusionary rule did not apply because the officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance on controlling Eighth Circuit precedent (Davis good-faith exception).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether using a drug dog seven–eight minutes after a completed traffic stop unreasonably extended the seizure absent reasonable suspicion	The dog sniff prolonged the stop beyond the time needed to complete the traffic matter, violating the Fourth Amendment under the Supreme Court’s guidance	The delay was de minimis and consistent with Eighth Circuit precedent allowing brief post-stop dog sniffs	The court acknowledged the Supreme Court’s rule but held suppression is barred because officers relied in good faith on existing Eighth Circuit precedent; judgment affirmed
Whether the exclusionary rule applies when officers acted under binding (but later-invalidated) circuit precedent	Exclusion should follow a favorable Supreme Court decision to vindicate rights and deter unlawful conduct	Under Davis, searches made in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are excluded from the exclusionary rule	The court applied Davis: because the search was conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on then-controlling Eighth Circuit law, the exclusionary rule does not apply

United States v. $404,905.00 in U.S. Currency, 182 F.3d 643 (8th Cir. 1999) (Eighth Circuit precedent treating brief post-stop delays for a dog sniff as constitutionally permissible)
United States v. Morgan, 270 F.3d 625 (8th Cir. 2001) (upholding a short delay for a dog sniff as de minimis)
United States v. Martin, 411 F.3d 998 (8th Cir. 2005) (same)
United States v. Alexander, 448 F.3d 1014 (8th Cir. 2006) (same)
Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011) (searches made in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule)
Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (Supreme Court holding that police may not routinely extend a completed traffic stop, absent reasonable suspicion, to conduct a dog sniff)