An Adams County judge mistakenly concluded that sheriff’s deputies unconstitutionally prolonged a traffic stop, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Monday, when the facts showed the officers had actually placed the defendant under “full arrest” supported by probable cause.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and there are limits on law enforcement’s ability to detain a suspect during an “investigatory stop” that has not yet escalated to an arrest. District Court Judge Brett Martin concluded deputies “unreasonably lengthened” Sean Terrance Johnson’s detention when they called in a drug detection dog to sniff his car without reasonable suspicion.

However, all parties characterized Martin’s ruling as unclear or confused.

Specifically, the district attorney’s office pointed out the deputies had placed Johnson under arrest by the time of the dog sniff. As a result, they could not have unreasonably lengthened his initial detention.

The Supreme Court agreed.

“It was this factual error upon which the court’s erroneous legal conclusion — that the investigative stop was unlawfully extended — rested,” wrote Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter in the June 17 opinion. “Because Johnson was arrested, the officers had a lawful basis for Johnson’s continued seizure, and the court erred by concluding his stop was impermissibly extended.”

Prosecutors charged Johnson with unlawful drug possession and other offenses related to items deputies uncovered from Johnson’s car following the dog sniff. Johnson sought to exclude the evidence from being used against him on account of the alleged violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

After a hearing last fall, Martin determined the sequence of events involved:

• Sheriff’s personnel witnessing Johnson make turns from designated turn lanes, but without activating his blinkers

• Johnson was unable to show his license and registration after being pulled over

• Deputies spied a bullet casing inside the car and Johnson admitted to having a shotgun in the trunk

• Upon believing Johnson to be armed and dangerous, a pat-down search yielded a pipe allegedly used for drugs

• Johnson admitted to recently using the pipe and Deputy Robert Bacigalupo placed him under arrest

• Half an hour later, a drug detection dog arrived and alerted to the presence of narcotics in the car

Although there was probable cause of a crime based on Johnson’s possession of the pipe, “I don’t find that based upon the totality of the circumstances that there was reasonable, articulable suspicion that there were illegal drugs in the car or some criminal activity that warranted further investigation or the use of a K-9,” Martin said. Therefore, “I do find that law enforcement impermissibly and unreasonably extended the duration of the scope of the traffic stop, which is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.”

After the prosecution asked Martin to reconsider, he issued a written order clarifying that nothing suggested the arresting officers “intended to effect a full arrest and transport of Mr. Johnson on the charge of possession of drug paraphernalia or the traffic offenses leading to the stop in this case.” Because the dog sniff occurred only after the unreasonable extension of the investigatory stop, the evidence could not be used against Johnson.

The prosecution appealed directly to the Supreme Court, arguing Martin’s twin rulings made no sense. First, while Bacigalupo did testify he would not generally arrest someone for the traffic infraction alone, he never disavowed arresting someone found to have drug paraphernalia. Second, Johnson was, in fact, under “a full arrest” at the time of the dog sniff — no longer an investigatory stop.

“While the trial court’s oral and written ruling were somewhat lacking in clarity,” conceded public defender Jackson A. Laughlin, “at the time Mr. Johnson was arrested, there was no evidence that the pipe could be used for anything more than the legal consumption of marijuana,” meaning probable cause was absent.

Berkenkotter, in the Supreme Court’s opinion, noted Martin was initially correct that Bacigalupo had probable cause to arrest Johnson for drug paraphernalia based on the pipe and Johnson’s own statement about using it. 

“But then, confusingly, the court made a 180-degree turn,” she wrote, “finding that Johnson had not been formally arrested.”

Martin “veered off course,” Berkenkotter elaborated, by believing officers unreasonably extended an investigatory stop for the drug sniff because they were not otherwise inclined to arrest Johnson. However, Johnson was actually under arrest by the time the dog arrived.

The constitutionality of Johnson’s seizure “need not be examined as an extension of his original investigatory stop. Rather, the question for the court was whether the evidence seized from Johnson’s car was lawfully discovered following his arrest,” she concluded.

The Supreme Court returned the case to Martin to decide if the evidence in his car was lawfully obtained after his arrest.

The case is People v. Johnson.