activity, is: “something short
of probable cause” and “
considerably less than proof of
wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence” where
the officer “must have more
than a simple hunch” and
“minimal level of objective
justification.” See paragraph
56. See Anderson & Cole, supra
experienced in drug interdiction, and were two unlabeled
taped boxes in the trunk consistent with drug packages.
55. The Woods unanimous decision
written by Judge Howe and
joined by Judges Orozco and
Portley, citing applicable
authority, determines that hav-
ing a particularized and objec-
tive basis for suspecting that a
person is engaged in criminal
Court, 556 U.S. at 347.
45. Id. at 339.
46. Id. at 344-45.
47.134 S. Ct. at 2492 (internal
48. Supra note 39 at 279-80.
50.575 U.S. ___ (2015).
51.556 U.S. 346 n. 2 (citations
52. Id. at headnote 11.
53.___ P. 3d ___ (Ariz. 2015)
( 1 CA-CR 130655).
54. Defendant had an extensive
criminal history of drug transportation, was driving a leased
vehicle with no personal
belongings, his answers to
where he was going on
Interstate 10 in Chandler at
5: 45 a.m. were “confused and
perplexed,” the officer was very
An example of this is State v. Woods, 53
decided a few weeks before Rodriguez,
where Division One reversed the trial
court’s suppression order of marijuana
discovered after a dog sniff during a traf-
fic stop. The court found under the total-
ity of the circumstances54 the officer had
reasonable suspicion55 to detain the
defendant for a dog sniff. An issue raised
before but not resolved by the trial court,
causing a remand, was whether the 40-
minute detention for the narcotics dog to
arrive was unreasonable.
These two dog-sniff cases are impor-
tant in part, albeit in a limited way, on the
issue of the viability of the exceptions
to Gant that caused it to lose its original
luster as a case, originally thought to be
as important in criminal law as Miranda. 56
A detention after a stop is a tactic used to
gain warrantless access to a suspect’s vehi-
cle. We will need to assess how future
cases apply Rodriguez in the typical traffic
is the dissent by Justice Thomas, who
was in the majority in Gant, and who
discusses both Gant and Riley as settled
authority. He notes these cases permit
a warrantless arrest of the driver, and
searches of his person and vehicle inci-
dent to arrest. He remarks the same is
permissible, inter alia, because of Gant’s
expressly stated exception where there
is reason to believe evidence relevant
to the crime of arrest might be found
therein. AZ AT
• Over 55 years combined experience
• Full-time nurse consultant
• Lawyer-physician “of counsel”
• Relationships with many of the best
medical experts in the country John Ager & Bill Sandweg
Let us absorb the costs of
evaluating/litigating your medical
malpractice case and share fees
as permitted by E.R. 1. 5.
Medical Malpractice Lawyers
:::; 6$1':(*$1'$*( 5; 1( 7;