U.S. v. Goodwill

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress two kilograms of cocaine found by police officers in defendant’s vehicle, after canine unit dog alerted police to presence of drugs in vehicle that had been stopped for window unit violation. While defendant argued that drugs should have been suppressed because police prolonged his stop by asking questions that were unrelated to “mission” of instant stop, such as inquiries about defendant’s job, gifts for defendant’s child and toys in defendant’s trunk, and by conducting dog sniff without his consent, Dist. Ct. could properly find that said inquiries did not actually prolong stop. Moreover, police need not obtain defendant’s permission to conduct dog sniff, where, as here, dog sniff did not prolong stop, and where record showed that police were still processing paperwork for instant violation when canine unit arrived at scene of stop. Fact that canine unit was rushed to scene of stop, and that one officer urged canine unit officer to “hurry” to scene of stop did not require different result.