Convictions Reversed in Drug Dog Cases
In Dominguez, deputies stopped a car driven by Dominguez after they observed him fail to properly signal a right turn. Dominquez appeared nervous when he gave his driver’s license to the deputies. The deputies had Dominguez exit his car. The deputies asked did he have any drugs or weapons on his person. Dominguez said that he did not have any drugs or weapons. The deputies asked him to empty his pockets and he placed the items from his pockets on the trunk of the car. The deputies asked for permission to search his person and Dominguez consented. No drugs were found. One deputy said Dominguez was “good to go.” The deputies asked Dominguez three times for permission to search his car. When he refused consent, the deputies called for a canine unit to come to the scene and detained Dominguez until the canine unit arrived. The canine unit arrived about 10 minutes later. The drug dog sniffed the exterior of the car and indicated the presence of drugs. The deputies searched the car and found three grams of methamphetamine. The judge denied Dominquez’s motion to suppress the drugs.
The Court of Appeals agreed with Dominguez that the search was unlawful because the State failed to show that the deputies were still investigating the failure to properly signal a right turn at the time they called for the canine unit. There was no evidence that the deputies were waiting on information on the validity of the driver’s license, insurance or registration. Further, there was no evidence that the deputies were writing a citation or even thinking about whether to write a citation or issue a warning. Therefore, the search was unlawful. The Court of Appeals noted that Dominquez's nervousness alone was not sufficient to justify a detention beyond the initial traffic stop. Payne v. State, 244 Ga. App. 734 (2000); Cunningham v. State, 246 Ga. App. 663 (2000).In Nunnally, the police stopped Nunnally for failure to use his turn signal. The officer received Nunnally’s driver’s license and insurance information. The officer said Nunnally was fidgety and did not look him in the eye. The officer removed Nunnally from the car and preformed a pat down. The officer asked for consent to search the car but Nunnally refused. During the traffic stop, a backup officer arrived with a drug dog. While being walked around the vehicle the dog signaled at the driver’s door. Nunnally was arrested. A search of Nunnally and the driver’s floorboard yielded marijuana. The Court of Appeals reversed Nunnally’s drug conviction because after the backup officer arrived at the scene and the initial officer removed Nunnally from the vehicle and determined that he did not have a weapon on his person, the officer did not engage in any investigation relating to the traffic offense. He did not start writing a citation or warning. As in Dominguez, the Court of Appeals noted that Nunnally’s apparent nervousness and unwillingness to look the officer in the eye was not sufficient to support a reasonable articuable suspicion that Nunnally was engaged in criminal activity. Bell v. State, 295 Ga. App. 607 (2009).  |
 |
