U.S. v. Guidry

In prosecution on drug and prostitution charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress drugs seized from his car and two homes, after dog alerted to presence of drugs in defendant's car after he had been stopped on traffic violation. Defendant did not challenge legality of his traffic stop, and Ct. rejected his claim that officer improperly conducted dog sniff during said stop, where: (1) instant dog sniff, which occurred within five minutes of officer requesting said sniff, did not prolong traffic stop in any meaningful way; (2) dog alert occurred while officer was still processing defendant’s traffic citation; and (3) at time officer stopped defendant on traffic violation, officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant had drugs in his car due to faint smell of marijuana in defendant’s car and due to officer’s prior traffic stop of defendant where officer had noticed stronger marijuana smell. Also, officer did not improperly assist dog during instant sniff, where dog initially alerted to presence of drugs while outside of defendant’s car, and where dog entered car through door that had been left open by defendant. Moreover, subsequent searches of defendant’s homes were proper since they were based on distribution amounts of drugs found in defendant’s car, as well as defendant’s admission that he had used drugs at his home.