If the driver is detained after issuing a speeding ticket and a canine alerts to narcotics, and narcotics are recovered from the car, the narcotics are:

• A. Admissible regardless
• B. Inadmissible since the detention after the ticket was issued was unconstitutional
• C. Admissible only with the driver's consent
• D. Admissible only with a warrant

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that evidence gathered as a result of an unlawful police detention at a traffic stop is generally not admissible. During a traffic stop, officers may detain a driver only for the time reasonably necessary to issue the citation and handle routine tasks. If the stop is prolonged beyond that to pursue a dog sniff or other investigation without proper justification, the detention becomes unconstitutional. Any narcotics found as a result of that unlawful detention are considered the fruit of the poisonous tree and must be suppressed.

So, because the driver was detained after the speeding ticket was issued and the detention extended to bring in the canine alert, the narcotics recovered are inadmissible. The dog’s alert cannot validate an otherwise unlawful stop. Only if the detention had been lawful—such as for a valid, shorter stop or with consent, or if a warrant or independent probable cause was present—would the narcotics potentially be admissible.