United States v. Foreste, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3766

Foreste was stopped twice for traffic violations in Massachusetts and Vermont; both stops were followed by suspicious behavior leading to canine sniff; the second stop relied on a known drug-trafficking investigation and canine alert; Foreste moved to suppress and sought the narcotics dog’s field records; the district court denied both requests; the court of appeals affirmed suppression denial in part and remanded for discovery of field records.
The Massachusetts stop lasted ~22 minutes for speeding; the Vermont stop lasted ~40 minutes for a rolling stop and suspicious behavior observed after the prior stop.
Independent grounds supported each stop but the second stop was extended for a canine search; the dog Duchess Corrie alerted; a warrant was sought and eventually obtained after Det. Albright detained Foreste.
Foreste argued the stops were part of a joint investigation and thus collectively unreasonable; he also sought field records of the dog’s performance to challenge reliability.
The district court’s factual findings and rulings were reviewed for clear error and de novo legal conclusions; discovery rulings under Rule 16 were reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether successive stops must be evaluated jointly or separately.	Foreste: joint evaluation warranted.	Foreste: same suspicion means joint review; otherwise cumulative intrusion.	Joint evaluation required when same suspicions justify both stops.
Whether the stops’ durations were reasonable.	Foreste: combined duration unreasonably intrusive.	Government: separate stops reasonable; durations within precedent.	Individually reasonable; combined duration not excessive under governing standards.
Whether Foreste was entitled to the narcotics dog’s field performance records.	Foreste: field records needed to test reliability.	Government: Harris allows reliability without mandatory field records.	Remand to consider field records; not limited to training/certification data.
Whether the district court erred in denying discovery of field records.	Foreste: discovery warranted to challenge reliability.	Gov’t: no requirement to disclose field records.	Abuse of discretion; remand for discovery of field performance records.
Whether the dog’s alert alone provided probable cause after Harris.	Foreste: field records needed to establish reliability.	Dog’s certification and training suffice under Harris.	Harris permits reliance on certification; field records may be discovered on remand.

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (probable-cause traffic stops justify subsequent action; motivation irrelevant)
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) (limits questions during traffic stops; inquiries must not extend stop unnecessarily)
United States v. Glover, 957 F.2d 1004 (2d Cir. 1992) (extensions require reasonable suspicion)
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) (stop must be temporary and focused on purpose)
United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985) (diligent pursuit of investigation within reasonable time)
United States v. Ilazi, 730 F.2d 1120 (8th Cir. 1984) (two successive stops must be reasonable in scope and duration to avoid gamesmanship)
United States v. Peters, 10 F.3d 1517 (10th Cir. 1993) (second stop based on same information can be improper)
United States v. Morin, 665 F.2d 765 (5th Cir. 1982) (second stop based on same suspicion can be intrusive)
United States v. Garcia, 23 F.3d 1331 (8th Cir. 1994) (second-stop analysis when independent grounds exist)
McFarley v. United States, 991 F.2d 1188 (4th Cir. 1993) (time/stop duration in canine investigations reviewed for reasonableness)
United States v. Waltzer, 682 F.2d 370 (2d Cir. 1982) (probable cause based on field performance history)
Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050 (2013) (canine reliability measured by training/certification; field data not dispositive but relevant)
Harris v. State, — (2013) (context for Harris discussion (not a separate reporter citation))