United States v. HUMPHRIES, 504 F.Supp.3d 464

On August 20, 2018 West Mifflin officer Rick Marone stopped a silver Infiniti with heavily tinted windows registered to Martinel Humphries and observed an overwhelming odor of raw and burnt marijuana; Humphries admitted smoking just before driving and two marijuana joints were later recovered from his person.
Marone detained Humphries for suspected DUI, the vehicle was inventoried (no contraband found), and a K-9 (Fetyls) from the county sheriff’s office was summoned to the scene.
The K-9 circled the car, alerted at the passenger-door area, and officers opened that door to allow the dog briefly inside; officers reported the dog alerted to the passenger backseat area.
The Infiniti was towed to the police sally port and a magistrate issued a search warrant the next morning based on an affidavit that included Marone’s observations, the persistent marijuana odor, the recovery of joints, Humphries’ criminal history, and the K-9 alert (but did not describe the dog’s certifications).
Execution of the warrant uncovered a stolen Glock, suspected heroin bundles, marijuana, and vehicle title; Humphries moved to suppress arguing the traffic stop was pretextual, the K-9 sniff/search violated the Fourth Amendment, and the warrant was defective for omitting K-9 qualifications.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Lawfulness of traffic stop (pretext/RS)	Stop lawful: Marone observed illegal heavy window tint, giving articulable reasonable suspicion to stop.	Stop was pretextual to investigate anonymous tips; thus lacked reasonable suspicion.	Stop lawful: observed tint violated PA law; officer need not show motive; stop met Terry standard.
K-9 sniff and interior entry	Exterior sniff and ensuing interior entry were lawful; dog alerted outside providing probable cause; interior migration was natural and not facilitated.	Dog’s entry into car converted sniff into an unconstitutional search because officers opened door and let dog in.	K-9 sniff lawful: dog’s interior sniffs were a natural migration from exterior alert and/or the exterior alert alone supplied probable cause to search.
Probable cause for warrant (omission of K-9 qualifications)	Affidavit provided probable cause via smell, admissions, recovered joints, criminal history, and the K-9 alert even without listing dog qualifications.	Warrant defective because affidavit failed to establish or aver K-9 Fetyls’ training/reliability.	Magistrate had substantial basis for probable cause; omission of K-9 qualifications did not invalidate the warrant.
Good-faith reliance alternative	N/A	Warrant invalidation would require suppression; alternatively, officers relied in good faith on issued warrant.	Even if warrant deficient, Leon good-faith exception would bar suppression.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (authorizes brief investigatory stops on reasonable, articulable suspicion)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (officer's subjective motive irrelevant when traffic violation observed)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (warrant requirement and Fourth Amendment principles)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (magistrate's probable-cause determination entitled to great deference)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule for reliance on a warrant)
United States v. Pierce, 622 F.3d 209 (3d Cir. 2010) (K-9 interior migration can be natural and lawful; officer facilitation is the key concern)
United States v. Rivera, [citation="347 F. App'x 833"] (3d Cir. 2009) (positive dog alert may be considered in probable-cause determination absent detailed reliability averments)
United States v. Ramos, 443 F.3d 304 (3d Cir. 2006) (smell of marijuana can establish probable cause)