Unreasonably Prolonged Detentions

Examples of Prolonged Detention

In State v. Dass, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 459c (9th Judicial Circuit 2021), the court listed several circuit court appellate opinions and trial court opinions involving cases where courts determined that prolonged detentions were unreasonable, including:

• State v. Swick, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 995a (Fla. 7th Cir. Ct. Dec. 18, 2017) (where lawful traffic stop and reasonable suspicion for DUI, 27 to 28 minute delay in starting the DUI investigation was unreasonable because three officers at the scene could have done the investigation rather than waiting for a fourth with a video camera);
• State v. Freeman, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 680a (Fla. Volusia Cty. Ct. March 24, 2014) (officer developed grounds for DUI investigation but did nothing for ½ hour while waiting for another officer to arrive on scene, deemed unreasonable detention);
• State v. Nicholson, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 582b (Fla. Sarasota Cty. Ct. Sept. 20, 2013) (officer made valid stop and developed grounds for a DUI investigation but waited 17 minutes for another officer to arrive to do the investigation and stopping officer did nothing during that time — court held that once the investigation stopped the detention became unlawful.);
• State v. Niehans, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 365a (Fla. Escambia Cty. Ct. Jan. 15, 2008) (30 to 35 minute delay for arrival of officer to conduct field sobriety exercises was deemed unreasonable);
• State v. Nesseler, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 966a (Fla. Dade Cty. Ct. May 20, 2005) (where officer lawfully stopped boat and had reasonable suspicion for BUI, it was improper to detain the defendant for two hours for the arrival of another officer when the other officers could have carried out the investigation.)
• State v. Morros, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 827b (Cty. Ct. 6th Jud. Cir. Pasco County 2013)
• State v. Vanwinkle, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 827a (Cty. Ct. 6th Jud. Cir. Pinellas County 2016)
• State v. Schepp, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 766a (Fla. Sarasota County Ct. December 12, 2008), affirmed 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 733a (Fla. 12th Cir. Court May 14, 2009)
• State v. Bresnen, Case No. 2021 CT 237 AX (Fla. Manatee County Court, May 2, 2023); 
• State v. Marquette, Case No. 2012 CT 4127SC (Fla. Sarasota County Court, March 1, 2013)
• State v. Gagan, Case No. 1999 CT 14752NC (Fla. Sarasota County Court, June 21, 2000)

In numerous cases, the courts in Florida have held that detentions of lengths varying from ten minutes to as much as forty-five minutes have been deemed unreasonable and illegal.

The United States Supreme Court in Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) found that a driver cannot be detained for longer than necessary to issue a traffic citation without probable cause or a founded suspicion of criminal activity for continued detention.

The appellate courts in Florida have determined that the duration of a traffic stop should be limited to the preparation of a citation unless an officer “possesses a reasonable or well-founded suspicion of criminal activity so as to justify an investigatory stop.” State v. Pye, 551 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

Prolonged Detentions for K9 Searches

In Hudson v. State, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1513a (Fla. 5th DCA July 24, 2026), the defendant appealed his conviction and the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained following a traffic stop of the vehicle in which he was riding as a passenger.

The defendant’s motion to suppress claimed the officer impermissibly and unnecessarily prolonged the traffic stop for the purpose of summoning a K-9 team to the scene to conduct a drug detection sniff around the exterior of the car. The facts at the hearing showed the officer “radioed for the K-9 team approximately four (4) minutes after the stop was initiated, the K-9 arrived very quickly thereafter; however, a total of ten (10) minutes and twenty (20) seconds elapsed post-stop before the K-9 exterior sniff of the car began.” Id.

After the trial court denied the motion to suppress, the defendant entered a no contest plea to the multiple charges lodged against him, which were based on contraband seized following the K-9 walk around. The defendant specifically reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress, which was acknowledged below as dispositive.

In reversing the conviction, the court noted:

“It is well established that the use of a narcotics dog to sniff a vehicle does not constitute a search and may be conducted during a consensual encounter or traffic stop.” Whitfield v. State, 33 So. 3d 787, 790 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citing Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005)). “However, absent an articulable suspicion of criminal activity, the time an officer takes to issue a citation should last no longer than is necessary to make any required license or registration checks and to write the citation.” Id. (citing Maxwell v. State, 785 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (additional citations omitted)). “[T]he canine search of the exterior of the vehicle must be completed within the time required to issue a citation.” Id. (citing Eldridge v. State, 817 So. 2d 884, 887 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)).

The State offered no evidence to justify the length of time that expired between the traffic stop and the K-9 walk around. The officer who stopped the vehicle did not issue a traffic ticket and couldn’t recall whether he issued a written warning to the driver. We agree that the traffic stop was improperly and unnecessarily prolonged. Accordingly, we quash the order denying Appellant’s motion to suppress.

The concerning opinion by Judge Eric J. Eisnaugle also recognized the State failed to carry its burden at the suppression hearing while noting:

“[A] seizure that is lawful at its inception can violate the Fourth Amendment if its manner of execution unreasonably infringes interests protected by the Constitution.” Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005). For that reason, “[a] dog-sniff that prolongs a traffic stop . . . results in an unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment absent reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop.” Vangansbeke v. State, 223 So. 3d 384, 386 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (citing Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015)). “The inquiry is whether the dog-sniff prolonged the stop beyond the necessary time to conduct the normal inquiries incident to a traffic stop — such as determining whether the driver and passengers have outstanding warrants — and to issue a traffic citation or warning.” Id.

…As the majority observes, our record contains no evidence establishing what transpired between the initiation of the traffic stop and the dog sniff. We do not know whether the officer was investigating the traffic infraction, preparing a warning, or simply waiting for the K-9 unit. See Jones v. State, 187 So. 3d 346, 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (finding a Fourth Amendment violation where “the officer abandoned his reason for the traffic stop (writing the seatbelt citation) and instead chose to conduct the sniff of Defendant’s vehicle”). Because the State failed to establish that the stop remained lawful at the time of the sniff, we must reverse.