United States v. James Evans, 786 F.3d 779

Background

Deputy Zirkle (Washoe County) stopped Evans’s vehicle for unsafe lane change/following too closely after receiving GPS-based tips from DEA detective Beard that Evans was transporting meth from Sacramento.
Zirkle conducted routine traffic tasks (license/registration, warrants check); dispatch returned clean records and Zirkle then initiated an ex-felon registration check upon seeing Evans had prior felony convictions.
The ex-felon registration check took about eight minutes; dispatch confirmed Evans was registered and had drug-related convictions. Zirkle gave a warning and returned paperwork.
Immediately after telling Evans he was free, Zirkle re-engaged, asked about drugs, requested consent to search (denied), then deployed a drug-detection dog (Thor); Thor alerted and officers searched the vehicle.
The search recovered methamphetamine, marijuana, cocaine, and a firearm; Evans moved to suppress, arguing the stop was unlawfully prolonged by the ex-felon check and the dog sniff.
The district court granted suppression; on appeal the Ninth Circuit vacated submission pending Rodriguez and held the prolongations violated the Fourth Amendment unless independently supported by reasonable suspicion, remanding because the district court made no factual findings on reasonable suspicion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether extending a traffic stop to run an ex-felon registration check violated the Fourth Amendment	Evans: the ex-felon check was unrelated to the traffic mission and unreasonably prolonged the stop	Government: officer developed reasonable suspicion/probable cause during the stop; checks justified further inquiry	Prolongation to run the ex-felon check is unlawful unless supported by independent reasonable suspicion; remanded to determine if such suspicion existed
Whether conducting a dog sniff after traffic tasks were completed violated the Fourth Amendment	Evans: dog sniff occurred after mission was complete and unlawfully extended the stop	Government: facts observed during stop provided reasonable suspicion to justify the sniff	Dog sniff is not part of the traffic mission and unlawfully prolongs a stop absent independent reasonable suspicion; remanded to assess whether suspicion existed
Standard for justifying prolongation of a traffic stop	Evans: prolongation requires independent, particularized reasonable suspicion	Government: officer diligence and overall short delay make the extension permissible	Court applied Rodriguez: prolongation acceptable only if supported by independent reasonable suspicion; diligence/short-duration alone insufficient
Appropriate remedy/procedure when record lacks findings on reasonable suspicion	Evans: suppression warranted; district court need not make further findings	Government: factual assessment needed on remand	Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded for the district court to make credibility findings and decide if independent reasonable suspicion justified each prolongation

Key Cases Cited

Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (traffic-stop mission limits detention; non-mission tasks that add time require independent reasonable suspicion)
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (a dog sniff during a lawful traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment unless it prolongs the stop)
Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998) (scope of inquiries incident to a traffic stop is limited to its mission)
United States v. Mendez, 476 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2007) (officer may prolong a stop if independent reasonable suspicion arises)
United States v. Montero–Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (definition and standard for reasonable suspicion)
United States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2013) (deference to inferences by local officers and review standard for reasonable suspicion)
United States v. Valdes-Vega, 738 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 2013) (reasonable-suspicion review standards and deference to factfinders)