Police cannot prolong a traffic stop without more than a hunch

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.