State v. Arias

¶ 1. This case comes before us by certification from the court of appeals. Ramon Arias (Arias) was charged with one count of carrying a concealed weapon, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 941.23 and 939.51(3)(a) (2005-06);1 one count of possession of a switchblade knife, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 941.24 and 939.51(3)(a); and one count of possession with intent to deliver no more than five grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school zone, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 961.41(lm)(cm)lr, 939.50(3)(f) and 961.49(2)(f).

¶ 2. After a preliminary hearing, the circuit court granted Arias's motion to suppress the weapon and the drugs obtained pursuant to the search conducted following a police dog's sniff of the exterior of the vehicle in which Arias was a passenger. The State appealed the order suppressing the evidence, and the court of appeals certified two issues to this court: (1) "whether, under the Wisconsin Constitution, a dog sniff of a stopped vehicle is a 'search'and (2) "whether the vehicle stop was unreasonably prolonged in duration by the officer's controlled substance investigation."2 In its certification, the court of appeals explained:

*364Here, the period of time to consider is the time consumed by the officer asking drug questions and preparing to release the dog, and then by the dog sniff itself. As we set forth above, the videotape shows that this period was approximately one minute and eighteen seconds.

¶ 3. We answer both certified questions in the negative. First, we conclude that a dog sniff of the exterior of a vehicle located in a public place does not constitute a search under the Wisconsin Constitution. *365Second, we conclude that Colby-Abbotsford Police Department Officer Brian Rennie (Rennie), who performed a "controlled substance investigation," did not unreasonably prolong his seizure of Arias. In so concluding, we determine that the circuit court's finding that the dog sniff prolonged the detention by "approximately 38 minutes" is clearly erroneous. The great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence shows that the dog sniff prolonged the detention by no more than 78 seconds. Under the totality of the circumstances herein presented, the 78 seconds during which the dog sniff occurred is a not an unreasonable incremental intrusion upon Arias's liberty. Accordingly, the dog sniff did not unreasonably prolong in duration the controlled substance investigation, which comported with the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and with Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution. Therefore, we reverse the order of the circuit court and remand for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4. On August 20, 2005, Rennie, accompanied by his police dog, D'Jango, sat in his police cruiser located in the parking lot of a flower shop, running radar detection on Highway 13. While there, he observed Arias exit a grocery store with three 12-packs of beer and place them in a vehicle he knew belonged to Megan Schillinger (Schillinger). From his acquaintance with Schillinger, Rennie knew her to be 17 years of age. When Schillinger began driving the vehicle containing both the beer and Arias, Rennie stopped them because he believed that Wisconsin law prohibited minors from operating vehicles that contain intoxicants.3

*366¶ 5. Rennie pulled Schillinger over and called for back-up at approximately 10:45 p.m. He approached the car; explained to Schillinger why he had stopped her; and then he took her driver's license back to his squad car. Though Rennie testified at the preliminary hearing that at this point he radioed dispatch to relay Schillinger's driver's license information, the State does not challenge the circuit court's finding to the contrary: the circuit court found that Rennie did not radio in Schillinger's information until 11:27 p.m. Ren-nie then returned to Schillinger's vehicle, where he administered a preliminary breath test to her to determine whether she had consumed alcohol. The breath test registered "zero." Rennie then asked Schillinger if there were any drugs in the car. Schillinger replied "no." Rennie then asked Schillinger if she and Arias were "carrying around anything with [them]." She again replied "no." At this point, Rennie returned to his squad car and released D'Jango to perform a sniff around the exterior of Schillinger's vehicle. The State concedes that Rennie did not have a reasonable suspicion of drug activity prior to the dog sniff.

¶ 6. The surveillance video taken from Rennie's squad car captures the activity of D'Jango, who alerts by sitting, which is called a "pass holder." D'Jango appears on the video accompanied by Rennie. D'Jango proceeds to the passenger side of the car, where he sits and barks. D'Jango then gets up and jogs to the driver's side of the car, where he also sits and barks. The time that elapsed from Rennie's question about drugs to the completion of D'Jango's sniff was one minute and 18 seconds. D'Jango's sniff concluded four minutes and ten seconds after Rennie stopped Schillinger's vehicle.

¶ 7. As a result of what he perceived as D'Jango's positive alert on the vehicle, Rennie instructed Arias to *367exit the vehicle and performed a "pat-down" search of him. After searching Arias, Rennie instructed Schill-inger to exit the vehicle, and he performed a "pat-down" search of her. He then proceeded to search Schillinger's car.

¶ 8. Inside the car, Rennie found a plastic bag containing a powdery substance that Arias identified as "coke" stuck between the front seats. Rennie also found a switchblade knife that "popped out" when he placed his weight on the front seat. Both items belonged to Arias.

¶ 9. Officer Jason Bauer, who arrived on the scene in response to Rennie's call for back-up, handcuffed Arias and searched him again, for the officers' safety. Rennie placed Arias in his squad car, removed the beer from Schillinger's car and told her that she was free to leave. The detainment concluded at approximately 11:27 p.m.

¶ 10. Rennie did not issue Schillinger a citation for transporting intoxicants as a minor until the next day. Rennie stated that he had drug evidence in his squad car that he wanted to deliver to the police station and that the encounter had led him to conclude that he "had a bigger concern with [Arias]" than in immediately issuing a ticket to Schillinger.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

¶ 11. "Whether police conduct constitutes a 'search' within the meaning of the [Wisconsin Constitution] is a question of law" subject to our independent review. State v. Miller, 2002 WI App 150, ¶ 5, 256 *368Wis. 2d 80, 647 N.W.2d 348. "The question [of] whether police conduct violated the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures is a question of constitutional fact" that we also review independently. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, ¶ 23, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613 N.W.2d 72.

¶ 12. Upon review of an order granting a motion to suppress evidence, we uphold the circuit court's findings of historic fact unless they are clearly erroneous. State v. Fonte, 2005 WI 77, ¶ 11, 281 Wis. 2d 654, 698 N.W.2d 594. A finding is clearly erroneous if "it is against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence." State v. Sykes, 2005 WI 48, ¶ 21 n.7, 279 Wis. 2d 742, 695 N.W.2d 277 (quoting State v. Tomlinson, 2002 WI 91, ¶ 36, 254 Wis. 2d 502, 648 N.W.2d 367).

B. Search

¶ 13. Arias asks us to conclude that the dog sniff of the exterior of Schillinger's vehicle was a search within the meaning of Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution and that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct such a search. Article I, Section 11 is the state analogue to the Fourth Amendment and protects persons against unreasonable searches and seizures.4

*369¶ 14. The United States Supreme Court has determined that a dog sniff of the exterior of a vehicle is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 410 (2005); see also United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 707 (1983). The Supreme Court first announced that a dog sniff is not a search in Place. Id. There, the defendant aroused the suspicion of law enforcement officers at Miami International Airport, who relayed their suspicion to law enforcement officers in New York, the defendant's destination. Place, 462 U.S. at 698. Agents of the Drug Enforcement Agency seized the defendant's luggage after he arrived at LaGuardia Airport and detained it for 90 minutes so that a narcotics detection dog could survey it. Id. at 698-99. The dog sniffed the defendant's luggage and signaled that one of his bags contained drugs. Id. at 699. The officers then secured a search warrant and found cocaine inside the bag to which the dog had alerted. Id.

¶ 15. Although the Supreme Court ruled that the 90-minute interlude between the detention of the luggage and the dog sniff was an unreasonably long seizure warranting suppression of the cocaine, the Court also concluded that the dog sniff did not constitute a search. Id. at 707. The Court reasoned that a dog sniff "discloses only the presence or absence of narcotics" and, accordingly, provides distinct limits on lawful private interests that can be revealed through a sniff. Id.

¶ 16. Place's conclusion that a dog sniff is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment was reinforced by Caballes. In Caballes, the defendant was stopped for speeding and, while the detaining officer issued a ticket for that offense, another officer who arrived at the scene separately permitted his dog to canvass the exterior of the defendant's car. Caballes, *370543 U.S. at 406. The dog alerted to the trunk, and the officers found marijuana inside. Id. The Supreme Court concluded that, because the driver was lawfully seized for a traffic violation, and because a dog sniff of the exterior of a vehicle did not constitute a search, the intrusion of the dog sniff did not "rise to the level of a constitutionally cognizable infringement." Id. at 409.

¶ 17. Wisconsin courts have also addressed the question of whether a dog sniff constitutes a search. The court of appeals, in Miller, phrased the question presented as whether the "use of a drug-sniffing dog to detect the presence of marijuana inside Miller's car violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution." Miller, 256 Wis. 2d 80, ¶ 5.

¶ 18. In Miller, the use of a dog sniff of the exterior of a vehicle followed the execution of a search warrant for a residence where police officers had found marijuana. Id., ¶ 2. Subsequent to the search of the residence, the officers checked the cars located nearby on the street, with the assistance of a narcotics detecting dog. Id., ¶ 3. The dog alerted three times to a particular car, and the officers found marijuana in the car. Id. In upholding the circuit court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress, the court of appeals concluded that dog sniffs are not searches under the Fourth Amendment. Id., ¶¶ 4, 9. However, the court did not separately analyze the issue under Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and its actual holding addresses only the Fourth Amendment. Id., ¶ 10. Therefore, whether a dog sniff is a search under Article I, Section 11 remained an open question.

¶ 19. Generally, we have interpreted provisions of the Wisconsin Constitution consistent with the United *371States Supreme Court's interpretation of their counterparts in the federal constitution. State v. Jennings, 2002 WI 44, ¶ 39, 252 Wis. 2d 228, 647 N.W.2d 142. However, on occasion, we have interpreted a provision in the Wisconsin Constitution more broadly than the United States Supreme Court has interpreted a parallel provision in the United States Constitution. State v. Knapp, 2005 WI 127, ¶ 56, 285 Wis. 2d 86, 700 N.W.2d 899 (interpreting Article I, § 8 more broadly than the United States Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment); State v. Dubose, 2005 WI 126, ¶ 45, 285 Wis. 2d 143, 699 N.W.2d 582 (also interpreting Article I, § 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution more broadly than the Fifth Amendment).

¶ 20. Historically, we have interpreted Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution in accord with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., State v. Malone, 2004 WI 108, ¶ 15, 274 Wis. 2d 540, 683 N.W.2d 1; State v. Guzman, 166 Wis. 2d 577, 586-87, 480 N.W.2d 446 (1992); State v. Williams, 47 Wis. 2d 242, 249, 177 N.W.2d 611 (1970). Our coordination of Article I, § 11 with the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence began long before we were required to follow the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence by its decision in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). For example, in Hoyer v. State, 180 Wis. 407, 193 N.W. 89 (1923), we excluded evidence that was obtained in violation of Hoyer's constitutional rights under Article I, § 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution, an interpretation consistent with the United States Supreme Court's use of the exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment. Hoyer, 180 Wis. at 412 (citing Amos v. United States, 255 U.S. 313 (1921)). State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, 245 Wis. 2d 206, 629 N.W.2d 625, represents the only time we have *372departed from the Supreme Court's construction of the Fourth Amendment in our interpretation of Article I, Section ll.5

¶ 21. There are sound policy reasons for this consistency in our jurisprudence. By following the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in interpreting Article I, Section 11, we impart certainty about what the law requires for those who will apply our decisions with respect to searches and seizures, and we provide distinct parameters to those who must enforce the law while maintaining the constitutionally protected rights of the people. Therefore, were we to conclude that a dog sniff of the exterior of a vehicle in a public place constitutes a search under Article I, Section 11, we would be undertaking a significant departure from the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in interpreting the right to be free of unreasonable searches under the Wisconsin Constitution.

*373¶ 22. We are unwilling to undertake such a departure here. First, we note that there is no constitutionally protected interest in possessing contraband under the United States Constitution, United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 123 (1984), nor is there a constitutionally protected interest in possessing contraband under the Wisconsin Constitution. Moreover, the occupant of a vehicle has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the air space surrounding a vehicle that he is occupying in a public place. State v. Garcia, 195 Wis. 2d 68, 74-75, 535 N.W.2d 124 (Ct. App. 1995).

¶ 23. Second, a dog sniff is much less intrusive than activities that have been held to be searches. Place, 462 U.S. at 707. When a dog sniffs around the perimeter of a vehicle, the occupant of the vehicle is not subjected to the embarrassing disclosure or inconvenience that a search often entails. Id. The dog sniff reveals only the presence or absence of narcotics, a contraband item. Id. Indeed, a dog sniff is unique as a means of detection because, as the Supreme Court has observed, a dog sniff gives limited information that is relevant only to contraband for which there is no constitutional protection. Id.

¶ 24. Arias asserts constitutional protection for a place, the area surrounding the outside of Schillinger's vehicle. However, the proscription against unreasonable searches contained within Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution is meant to protect people, not things or places, aside from their relationships to people affected by government action. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967); Garcia, 195 Wis. 2d at 74. The protection afforded to people in relation to things and places is the expectation that *374people will be free from government intrusion into places or things in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. See Katz, 389 U.S. at 351-52; State v. Bruski, 2007 WI 25, ¶¶ 23-24, 299 Wis. 2d 177, 727 N.W.2d 503. As the court of appeals has explained, the occupant of an auto parked in a public place cannot contend that he has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the air space around the exterior of the vehicle. Garcia, 195 Wis. 2d at 74. Accordingly, because of the limited intrusion resulting from a dog sniff for narcotics and the personal interests that Article I, Section 11 were meant to protect, we conclude that a dog sniff around the outside perimeter of a vehicle located in a public place is not a search under the Wisconsin Constitution.6

C. Seizure

¶ 25. The next question we must address is whether conducting the dog sniff unreasonably prolonged Arias's seizure. As we explained above, the federal and state constitutions protect persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const, amend. *375IV; Wis. Const, art. I, § 11. Although our legal lexicon often presents "searches and seizures" as an inseparable tandem, the two are constitutionally and analytically distinct. We have set out the parameters of a "search" under the federal and state constitutions as they relate to a dog sniff. A seizure differs from a search, as it "deprives the individual of dominion over his or her person or property." Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 133 (1990).

1. Duration of the dog sniff

¶ 26. Before discussing the general legal principles that may be applied, or the parties' positions in regard to whether the detention satisfies the constitutional standard of reasonableness, we must first resolve one predicate issue: By how much time did the dog sniff extend the traffic stop? Arias contends that the circuit court's conclusion that D'Jango's sniff prolonged the stop by "approximately 38 minutes" is not clearly erroneous; and therefore, the dog sniff unreasonably prolonged his seizure. In contrast, the State argues that the circuit court's finding with regard to the extension of the stop is clearly erroneous. The State maintains that it was not the dog sniff that extended the stop, but rather the "probable cause of drug activity," which the dog sniff generated, that extended the stop. Accordingly, the State contends that the actual time spent on the dog sniff is 78 seconds, because that is the time that elapsed between Rennie's question to Schillinger about whether the car contained drugs and the conclusion of D'Jango's sniff. The State supports its contention that the 78 seconds is the proper focus by emphasizing that the court of appeals, in certifying the case, identified 78 seconds as the time for us to consider.

*376¶ 27. The circuit court's finding that the dog sniff prolonged Schillinger and Arias's detention by "approximately 38 minutes" is clearly erroneous. Thirty-eight minutes was the approximate amount of time that elapsed from the conclusion of D'Jango's sniff to Arias's arrest. We conclude that it is against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence to find, as it appears the circuit court did, that the 38-minute interval is attributable to the time it took to complete the dog sniff. The 38 minutes that Schillinger and Arias were detained following the dog sniff was occupied by Rennie's search of the vehicle, his pat-down searches of Arias and Schillinger and the activities flowing from the vehicle search. It was those activities, not the dog sniff, that extended the detention by "approximately 38 minutes."

¶ 28. For example, when Rennie saw that D'Jango had alerted to Schillinger's vehicle, he concluded that he had probable cause to search the vehicle and its occupants.7 Rennie first instructed Arias to exit the vehicle, and then he conducted a "pat-down" search of Arias. He applied the same process with Schillinger. He then searched the vehicle, finding cocaine and a switchblade knife inside. The discovery of contraband precipitated Arias's arrest. It is these activities, not the dog sniff, that occupied the latter 38 minutes of the detainment.8 Accordingly, it was clearly erroneous for the *377circuit court to find that the dog sniff prolonged the detention by 38 minutes. Therefore, we consider the 78-second extension of Arias's detention in deciding whether Rennie's "controlled substance investigation" was reasonable under all the circumstances. Terry, 392 U.S. at 19; Griffith, 236 Wis. 2d 48, ¶ 38.

2. General principles

¶ 29. As explained above, this constitutional challenge arises in the course of a traffic stop. Because a traffic stop deprives a detained individual of dominion over his or her person and vehicle, a traffic stop is a seizure. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979); Malone, 274 Wis. 2d 540, ¶ 24. Although it is universally accepted that a traffic stop constitutes a seizure, courts disagree over what level of proof is necessary to support a traffic stop. Some courts, for example, the Supreme Court in Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998), and this court in Malone, have concluded that a traffic stop is an investigative detention. Investigative detentions, referred to as "Terry-stops," are analyzed under a two-part inquiry to determine whether they pass constitutional muster. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19-20 (1968); Griffith, 236 Wis. 2d 48, ¶ 26.

*378¶ 30. First, courts determine whether the seizure was justified at its inception. Terry, 392 U.S. at 19-20. Second, courts determine whether an officer's action "was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place." Id. at 20. Terry explained that in order for a search to be reasonable, "[t]he scope of the search must 'be strictly tied to and justified by' the circumstances which rendered [the search's] initiation permissible." Id. at 19 (citation omitted). The United States Supreme Court in Terry reasoned that "[t]he sole justification of the search in the present situation is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and [the search] must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover. . . instruments for the assault of the police officer." Id. at 29. The term "the scope of' was not defined solely with relation to the purpose for which the stop was made, but rather, also with relation to the public interest of protecting the personal safety of the officer and others, within the parameters of the detainee's Fourth Amendment rights. Id.; see also Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 48, 411-12 (1997);9 Griffith, 236 Wis. 2d 48, ¶ 38.

¶ 31. Different constitutional interests are affected by a search,10 as compared with the interests *379affected by a seizure.11 See, e.g., Griffith, 236 Wis. 2d 48, ¶¶ 26-27. We note that when "the scope of' a search is reviewed, the focus is on where and how the search was conducted.12 See Terry, 392 U.S. at 19. Where and how the search was conducted are important factors by which to judge the invasiveness of a search because the constitutional right affected by a search is the privacy interests of the person searched. Katz, 389 U.S. at 361 (Mr. Justice Harlan, concurring).

¶ 32. By contrast, when a seizure that was lawful at its inception and does not encompass an arrest is reviewed, the scope of the continued investigative detention is examined to determine whether it lasted "no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop," Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 (1983), and whether the investigative means used in the continued seizure are "the least intrusive means reasonably available to verify or dispel the officer's suspicion," id.13 In *380that vein, we consider whether the officer diligently pursued his investigation to confirm or dispel his suspicions. United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686 (1985). In Royer, the Supreme Court held that the means employed to continue Royer's seizure became unreasonably invasive when Royer, who was stopped in a public area of an airport terminal, was taken to a non-public location such that the "stop" became a "confinement." Royer, 460 U.S. at 501.

*381¶ 33. Griffith presented a different type of challenge to the constitutionality of a seizure. Our inquiry there focused on "the incremental intrusion" that was occasioned by an officer's questioning Griffith to determine whether that intrusion was unreasonable. Griffith, 236 Wis. 2d 48, ¶ 4. Our concern was whether the duration of the investigative stop was unconstitutionally extended when the officer asked Griffith, a passenger in the stopped vehicle, to step outside of the vehicle and answer questions concerning who he was and where he was going. Id. We were not concerned with the means used to continue Griffith's seizure, as the Supreme Court was in Royer.

¶ 34. In evaluating the challenge Griffith presented, we employed a three-part14 test that focused on the reasonableness of the continued seizure:

Consideration of the constitutionality of such seizures involves a weighing of the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty.

Id., ¶ 37 (citation omitted).15 We reviewed the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the "questioning transformed the reasonable seizure into an *382unreasonable one." Id., ¶ 41.16 We did so because the United States Supreme Court and this court have repeatedly eschewed bright-line rules for identifying whether a seizure is reasonable; instead, courts have focused on the totality of the circumstances that relate to each seizure. Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 (1996); Griffith, 236 Wis. 2d 48, ¶ 41. There remains no hard-and-fast time limit for when a detention has become too long and therefore becomes unreasonable. Sharpe, 470 U.S. at 685-86; Griffith, 236 Wis. 2d 48, ¶ 54.

3. The parties' positions

¶ 35. The parties do not dispute that the traffic stop falls under Knowles and Terry. We note that a "routine traffic stop ... is a relatively brief encounter and 'is more analogous to a so-called "Terry-stop" than to a formal arrest.' "17 Knowles, 525 U.S. at 117. With *383respect to the first part of the Terry inquiry, Arias concedes that the initial interference with his liberty was justified. He acknowledges that Rennie acted with lawful authority when he stopped Schillinger's vehicle.

¶ 36. However, Arias contends that Rennie imper-missibly extended the seizure by allowing D'Jango to sniff the vehicle because the "dog sniff occur[red] outside the scope of the initial traffic stop." Arias's brief, at 25. Therefore, he asserts that the time taken by the dog sniff transformed a reasonable and lawful seizure into an unreasonable and unlawful seizure. Stated otherwise, he contends that the dog sniff expanded the reason for the initial stop, when the expansion was not supported by reasonable suspicion of drug activity. He relies on State v. Betow, 226 Wis. 2d 90, 593 N.W.2d 499 (Ct. App. 1999) and State v. Gammons, 2001 WI App 36, 241 Wis. 2d 296, 625 N.W.2d 623.

¶ 37. The State asserts that State v. Gaulrapp, 207 Wis. 2d 600, 558 N.W.2d 696 (Ct. App. 1996) should control our decision. It contends that Gaulrapp's explanation that it is the duration of time by which the traffic stop was extended that is controlling, not the subject matter of the question that is asked, which we should apply here by analogy to the dog sniff.

4. Reasonableness of the dog sniff

¶ 38. Succinctly stated, the question we must decide is whether the 78 second intrusion upon Arias's liberty that was caused by the dog sniff was reasonable. "Reasonableness . . . depends 'on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.' " Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109 (1977) *384(citation omitted). A seizure becomes unreasonable when the incremental liberty intrusion resulting from the investigation supersedes the public interest served by the investigation. Id. In sum, an unconstitutional continuation of a once lawful seizure can occur when the extension of time for that needed to satisfy the original concern that caused the stop becomes unreasonable or when the means used to continue the seizure becomes unreasonable, both of which are evaluated under the totality of the circumstances presented.

¶ 39. Under the totality of the circumstances before us, we examine the public interest, the degree to which the continued seizure advances the public interest and the severity of the interference of Arias's liberty interest. Griffith, 236 Wis. 2d 48, ¶ 37. The dog sniff occurred so Rennie could ascertain whether there were drugs in Schillinger's vehicle. In that regard, the public interest in "preventing] the flow of narcotics into distribution channels" has long been recognized as significant. Place, 462 U.S. at 704. The use of a narcotics sniffing dog furthers this public interest by locating narcotics that may not otherwise be detected.18 The dog sniff was part of the on-going traffic stop of Schillinger that occurred because she was a minor and was transporting alcohol that Arias had placed in her vehicle. The dog sniff of Schillinger's vehicle took 78 seconds to further the public's interest. This brief 78-second ex*385tension of Arias's seizure is significantly outweighed by the importance of preventing the flow of illegal drugs.19

¶ 40. In addition, Rennie diligently pursued his investigation in a manner that could quickly confirm or dispel his suspicions relative to the stop of Schillinger's vehicle. Sharpe, 470 U.S. at 686. He observed beer being loaded into a car that was driven by Schillinger, whom he knew was under age. He quickly sought to ensure that Schillinger was not intoxicated, first by administering a preliminary breath test to her and then by inquiring whether drugs were in the vehicle. He released D'Jango to sniff the outside perimeter of the car. All these tasks took only 4 minutes, 10 seconds to accomplish. Rennie's actions were systematic and efficient. Arias was not taken to a non-public location as the defendant was in Royer. He remained seated in the passenger compartment of Schillinger's vehicle. Therefore, the incremental intrusion on Arias's liberty is time-focused, as it was in Griffith. On balance, we conclude that the incremental intrusion upon Arias's liberty interest that resulted from the 78-second dog sniff is outweighed by the public's interest served thereby. Accordingly, Arias was not subjected to an unreasonable seizure.

¶ 41. Our conclusion is consistent with the discussion in Gaulrapp. In Gaulrapp, the court of appeals was faced with the contention that asking a question about drugs and firearms, without a reasonable suspicion that Gaulrapp possessed either, caused a lawful seizure to become constitutionally infirm. Gaulrapp, 207 Wis. 2d *386at 608. In its discussion, the court of appeals correctly noted that no seizure occurs when law enforcement asks a question without a reasonable suspicion justifying the question so long as an answer is not compelled. Id. at 609. The court then noted that it was "the extension of a detention past the point reasonably justified by the initial stop, not the nature of the questions asked, that [may] violate [] the Fourth Amendment." Id. Gaulrapp is in accord with numerous federal and state courts.20 Similarly to Gaulrapp, here the relevant inquiry is not whether a dog sniff was conducted, or a question was asked, but whether Arias's detention was unreasonably extended. Id.’, see also, Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437 (1991).

¶ 42. Arias contends that Caballes stands for the proposition that a dog sniff conducted without reasonable suspicion of drug possession is per se violative of the federal Constitution unless the dog sniff is conducted simultaneously with activities germane to what precipitated the traffic stop in the first instance. We disagree. We do not read Caballes so narrowly. Indeed, Caballes observes that a traffic stop may become unlawful if it is "prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete" the activities attendant to the stop. Caballes, 543 U.S. at 407. As we have stated above, the time taken to complete the traffic stop and the dog sniff were reasonable.

¶ 43. Furthermore, Arias's reliance on Betow and Gammons is misplaced. In Betow, the court of appeals concluded that Betow's continued detention after he *387was stopped for speeding was not warranted by the facts available to the detaining officer. Betow is distinguishable from the case before us because the incremental intrusion on Betow's liberty interest was unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances presented. This is so because Betow's traffic stop for speeding had been concluded when the officer asked if he could search Betow's vehicle. Betow, 226 Wis. 2d at 92. Betow refused the officer's request. Id. Betow also asked the officer for permission to leave. Id. Notwithstanding Betow's request, the officer refused to permit him to leave. Additionally, instead of honoring Betow's request, the officer had his dog make "several passes around the car." Id. at 93. Next, the officer placed the dog inside Betow's car, where the dog located a packet of marijuana. Id.

¶ 44. By contrast, the traffic stop of Schillinger was on-going when the dog sniff of the outside of the vehicle occurred; the dog was not placed inside of Schillinger's vehicle; Arias had not asked to leave and been required to remain. Accordingly, the incremental intrusion upon Betow's liberty was significantly greater than that which occurred here.

¶ 45. We note that Betow contains broad dicta that might be read so as to cause confusion with the appropriate inquiry for evaluating the constitutionality of a continuing seizure. For example, Betow asserts:

[T]he scope of the officer's inquiry, or the line of questioning, may be broadened beyond the purpose for which the person was stopped only if additional suspicious factors come to the officer's attention — keeping in mind that these factors, like the factors justifying the stop in the first place, must be "particularized" and "objective."

Id. at 94. This dicta misstates the manner in which courts are to evaluate the reasonableness of the con*388tinuation of a seizure that was lawful at its inception. Betow was clarified by Gaulrapp's explanation that, "[n]o seizure occurs when police, without the reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop, ask questions of an individual... so long as the police do not convey that compliance with the request is required." Gaulrapp, 207 Wis. 2d at 609. The dicta in Betow quoted above is also inconsistent with Bostick, which concludes that law enforcement questions do not result in a seizure, so long as answers are not compelled. Bostick, 501 U.S. at 437. As we have explained, the appropriate inquiry involves balancing the public interest in the seizure, the degree to which the continued seizure advances the public interest and the severity of the interference with the liberty interest of the person detained. Griffith, 236 Wis. 2d 48, ¶ 37.

¶ 46. Gammons is also distinguishable from the totality of the circumstances presented here. In reversing the circuit court's refusal to suppress the evidence, the court of appeals in Gammons employed, in part, the dicta from Betow. Gammons, 241 Wis. 2d 296, ¶ 18. However, in examining the totality of the relevant circumstances we note that the reason for the initial seizure had been satisfied, id,., ¶ 2; the driver and the two passengers had provided identification, id.; the officer had run computer checks on all three, id.; the officer asked to search the vehicle and the driver had refused, id., ¶ 3. Thereafter, the officer threatened the driver with the further detainment so that he could use a drug sniffing dog, id., and the driver then consented to the search of the vehicle, id. Accordingly, the incremental intrusion upon Gammons's liberty interest was significantly greater than the intrusion upon Arias's liberty interest.

*389¶ 47. In sum, we observe that neither the Fourth Amendment nor Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution prohibit all seizures. Only unreasonable seizures are violative of constitutional rights. In examining the reasonableness of Arias's seizure, we balance the public's interest in preventing the distribution of illegal drugs, the furtherance of that interest by the continued seizure of Schillinger's vehicle and the effect on Arias's liberty interest under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution. See Mimms, 434 U.S. at 109; Griffith, 236 Wis. 2d 48, ¶ 37. The incremental extension of time expended in this stop that was occasioned by the dog sniff was a brief 78 seconds. It was only the 78 seconds of the dog sniff that added to Rennie's efficient efforts to confirm or allay his suspicions that led to the initial stop. This incremental liberty intrusion does not outweigh the public interest served by it; therefore, the incremental intrusion occasioned by the dog sniff satisfies our test for reasonableness. Griffith, 236 Wis. 2d 48, ¶ 38. Accordingly, the "controlled substance investigation" comported with the strictures of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution.

III. CONCLUSION

¶ 48. In conclusion, we answer both questions certified to us by the court of appeals in the negative. First, we conclude, in accordance with federal Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, that a dog sniff of the exterior of a vehicle located in a public place does not constitute a search under the Wisconsin Constitution. Second, we conclude that Rennie's "controlled substance investigation" did not unreasonably prolong his seizure of Arias. In so concluding, we determine that *390the circuit court's finding that the dog sniff prolonged the detention by "approximately 38 minutes" is clearly erroneous. The great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence shows that the dog sniff prolonged the detention by 78 seconds. Under the totality of the circumstances herein presented, the seventy-eight seconds is not an unreasonable incremental intrusion upon Arias's liberty. Accordingly, the dog sniff did not unreasonably prolong in duration the controlled substance investigation, which comported with the Fourth Amendment and with Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution.21

By the Court. — The order of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. Following remand, if a party moves the circuit court to determine whether the dog sniff was sufficient to establish probable cause to conduct a search of Schillinger's vehicle, our decision does not preclude the circuit court from holding a hearing on such a motion, if the circuit court chooses to do so.