Sometimes police will threaten to summon the K9 if you don't consent to a search. [1]
If extending a stop for dog sniffs is now unconstitutional, does that mean any officer using this tactic was making an illegal threat, and thus any search thereafter must be thrown out as coercive?
[1] At least, that's how the ACLU videos portray it; don't know how common this really is.
Realistically a police officer in the US does not have to worry about such "illegal threats". Manipulating people into letting them fish for evidence is a pretty standard part of the job. Most likely a judge isn't going to throw out a search except when there is an egregious error on LE's part.
E.g. if the suspect clearly stated "I do not consent to any searches. Am I being detained? If I am not being detained then I want to leave" and an officer proceeded to search anyway or detained the person, it would probably get thrown out, assuming there was video/audio evidence. If not, it's the cop's word against the defendant's (I'll let you guess whose the judge will believe).
But if the cop lies and says you have to wait for a K9 unit, and you believe him without asking if you're being detained, anything that dog finds is likely going to be fair game just as if you were bullied into consenting to a search (a friend of mine once refused consent to a vehicle search and was then told by the officer that such a refusal constituted probable cause, so he relented out of fear).
Keep in mind that this is all without probable cause. If they have probable cause, they can detain you and make you wait for a dog. With the Rodriguez case specifically, there was "erratic driving" which is likely enough cause for most judges.
What are you basing all of this off of? Are you an attorney? Or just articles you've read?
Cases absolutely do get thrown out all the time because of searches which occur subsequent to a detention without probable cause. I just saw it happen last week.
Around here when you ask your attorney about the police they say something like "I know those guys, they're good guys." My lawyer didn't bat an eye when I described an illegal search.
That would work also, but the thing is, even if they never summoned the K9, they are threatening to, and the law distinguishes between the police making legal vs. illegal threats.
That is, if the threaten to run your license plate, that's fine because it's legal (even if it would find something bad). But if they threaten to ram your car or take your kids, then any consent you gave would be (IIRC) inadmissible as being under duress.
This ruling would suggest that the K9 threat falls under the latter.
Call their bluff with "am I free to go?" Otherwise they'll use all kinds of squishy terms to persuade you to stay for the search when you don't have to. Recording it, of course, would be vital. IANAL, YMMV.
No, however if this happens to you, you should immediately ask if you are being detained and if you are free to go. You should be permitted to leave before any K9 arrives.
If extending a stop for dog sniffs is now unconstitutional, does that mean any officer using this tactic was making an illegal threat, and thus any search thereafter must be thrown out as coercive?
[1] At least, that's how the ACLU videos portray it; don't know how common this really is.