Suppose a detention during a traffic stop is unconstitutional. What is the likely effect on evidence found during a canine search conducted in connection with that stop?

Suppose a detention during a traffic stop is unconstitutional. What is the likely effect on evidence found during a canine search conducted in connection with that stop?

• A. The narcotics are always admissible
• B. The narcotics are inadmissible due to the unconstitutional detention
• C. The narcotics are admissible if the dog is certified
• D. The narcotics are admissible only with consent

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that the exclusionary rule blocks evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful seizure (fruit of the poisonous tree). If the detention during a traffic stop is unconstitutional, there’s no lawful basis for extending the stop or for the police to conduct a canine search tied to that stop. The narcotics found by the dog are tainted by that illegality, and there isn’t an independent source of probable cause or consent to justify admission. Therefore, the narcotics would be inadmissible. Certifications of the dog or the idea that consent could rescue the situation do not override the illegality of the detention in this scenario.

The key idea is that the exclusionary rule blocks evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful seizure (fruit of the poisonous tree). If the detention during a traffic stop is unconstitutional, there’s no lawful basis for extending the stop or for the police to conduct a canine search tied to that stop. The narcotics found by the dog are tainted by that illegality, and there isn’t an independent source of probable cause or consent to justify admission. Therefore, the narcotics would be inadmissible. Certifications of the dog or the idea that consent could rescue the situation do not override the illegality of the detention in this scenario.