March 25, 2016 – Jason Guidry received a 25-year prison term, pleading guilty to crimes prohibiting drug dealing and prostituting women. Recently, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Guidry’s claim that a police dog sniff was illegal.
Sheboygan police stopped Guidry in August 2012 for driving without license plates. The officer knew that Guidry was a suspected drug dealer. He detected a faint odor of marijuana but was not sure he had immediate probable cause to search the car.
The officer called for backup while processing Guidry’s paperwork, including a drug dog unit. Once the drug detection canine arrived, the officers asked Guidry to exit the vehicle. At first he refused, saying he did not consent, but ultimately relented.
The dog alerted to drugs at the door. Guidry said the dog then stuck his head inside the open door. Guidry admitted that a “blunt” was inside the car, half burned. An officer searched the car and found the blunt, along with baggies of heroin and cocaine.
They arrested Guidry and the next day obtained a search warrant for his residence. Detectives noted information from confidential informants that Guidry was selling large amounts of heroin, crack and other drugs, and was feeding heroin to women he pimped.
Executing the warrant, police found more drugs at Guidry’s home. A woman there said Guidry pimped women and sold drugs at a different place he maintained. Police then sought and obtained a warrant to search the other residence, finding more evidence.
Search Not Illegal
Guidry filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of an illegal traffic stop, which detectives had used to obtain the first and second search warrants. The district court denied the motion. Guidry ultimately pled guilty and appealed that decision.
He said police improperly prolonged the traffic stop and violated his right against unreasonable searches when allowing the drug dog to search inside the car.
In U.S. v. Guidry, No. 15-1345 (March 22, 2016), a three-judge panel for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, upholding the legality of the sniff and search.
“Guidry’s claim fails for two reasons: first, the dog sniff did not prolong the traffic stop, and second, even if it had, the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that Guidry’s car contained illegal drugs,” wrote Judge Joel Flaum.
The panel noted that Bud, the drug dog, arrived on scene shortly after the traffic stop occurred and the traffic stop officer was still preparing Guidry’s no-plate citation.
And even if there was evidence that the officer delayed issuing the citation, the panel noted, an extended stop was justified by a reasonable suspicion of drugs.
The officer had smelled a faint odor of marijuana after stopping Guidry, the panel explained. The same officer had previously stopped Guidry and smelled marijuana (although he found nothing upon a search of the car), and the officer was aware of information that Guidry was a suspected drug user and dealer.
“Thus, [the officer] ‘had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at that point and so was justified in prolonging the stop for a reasonable time to confirm or dispel, with the dog’s assistance, his mounting suspicions,’” wrote Flaum, citing a recent circuit decision.
The panel also rejected Guidry’s claim that the police violated his constitutional rights by allowing the dog to search inside the car without a reasonable suspicion of drugs.
Guidry relied on a 1998 case from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. v. Winningham, where the court concluded that allowing a drug dog to enter a vehicle without reasonable suspicion of drugs violated the defendant’s constitutional rights.
“This case is distinguishable from Winningham,” Judge Flaum wrote. “Here, there is no indication that officers intended to facilitate the dog’s entry into the car.”
The panel noted that police kept Bud on a leash and the officers did not open the door. Rather, Guidry left the door ajar when he exited the vehicle. Even if Bud’s head entered the interior of the car, the panel still found no constitutional violations.
“[A]t the point that Bud’s head supposedly entered Guidry’s car, the officers had probable cause to search the interior because Bud indicated that the car contained drugs while sniffing the perimeter,” Judge Flaum wrote.
“By contrast, at the time that the dog entered the van in Winningham, the officers had no reason to suspect that evidence of criminal activity would be found.”
The panel also upheld the residence searches, as well as sentence enhancements for using threats and fear as a way to get women to perform sexual acts.
