Members of the Colorado Supreme Court suggested on Wednesday that Denver police could have moved more rapidly to obtain a search warrant for a man’s vehicle, but at the same time they doubted the delay amounted to a constitutional violation.

A trial judge previously barred prosecutors from using evidence of narcotics found in Arthur Mills’ car, reasoning law enforcement impounded the vehicle “longer than necessary” to secure the search warrant following Mills’ arrest three days earlier. Both sides acknowledged the U.S. Supreme Court spoke about such delays in a 1970 opinion, declaring that unless police conduct a warrantless search, a vehicle “must be seized and held without a warrant for whatever period is necessary to obtain a warrant.”

But the Denver District Attorney’s Office argued the Supreme Court did not literally mean “as long as necessary,” and likely meant the delay only has to be reasonable. Mills countered that the question really should be whether a delay is “reasonably necessary.”

“I don’t know that you two are that far apart,” observed Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. during oral arguments.

The question of what to do with the narcotics evidence arose after police officers pulled over Mills for a traffic infraction, having observed him engage in signs of drug dealing. Mills did not have a license or proof of insurance and officers allegedly saw further indicators of drug activity during the stop.

Because Mills refused to get out of his car and officers were concerned about extracting him safely, they called Detective Kevin Burke. Although it was a Saturday afternoon and Burke was not working, he believed there was probable cause to impound the car and suggested the officers issue a citation and tell Mills he could not drive the vehicle under the circumstances.

On Monday, Burke returned to work. He requested that a drug detection dog sniff the impounded vehicle, but the dog handler asked if the sniff could happen on Tuesday. Burke said that was fine, as they had “seven days to execute search warrants.”

The dog arrived on Tuesday morning and alerted to the presence of drugs. Burke applied for a warrant that afternoon and a judge signed it. Upon entering the vehicle, police found “substantial quantities” of illegal narcotics.

The defense sought to exclude the evidence from trial, arguing police waited longer than necessary to obtain the search warrant. At a hearing, District Court Judge Adam J. Espinosa agreed the delay from Saturday to Tuesday violated Mills’ Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The prosecution appealed to the state Supreme Court, arguing Burke’s decision to wait for a dog sniff before obtaining a search warrant was reasonable.

“We do want police to be careful. We don’t want to penalize them for doing further investigation,” said Deputy District Attorney Ellen Michaels. “He certainly could have done this faster. He could have been sloppier about it. We don’t want that.”

“Had there been no dog sniff there probably would have been a question about why there wasn’t a dog sniff,” added Justice William W. Hood III.

Justice Richard L. Gabriel acknowledged the cautious approach seemed reasonable, but so did the defense’s argument that police appeared to be in no hurry following Mills’ arrest. Plus, Burke believed a seven-day period applied to search the car, which Michaels admitted was not the law.

“This was not a model of police conduct here,” Gabriel said. “I don’t suggest bad faith in the least, but it sounds like the detective misunderstood the law, thought he had seven days, no one thought they could get a warrant over the weekend — that’s not great.”

Justice Melissa Hart noted that while the car was valuable to Mills, its value did not decrease during the time police impounded it, nor could Mills have legally driven it anyway.

“Are you suggesting you would not have filed this motion to suppress if the warrant had been sought on Monday afternoon and not Tuesday afternoon?” she asked.

“Would I have filed the motion? Yes. Would it have been granted? I don’t know,” replied Deputy Public Defender Christopher Smallwood.

“That’s what I’m struggling with,” said Hart. “Really, what’s the difference between Monday afternoon and Tuesday afternoon?”

The case is People v. Mills.