Quick Alert, Lawful Search: The Eighth Circuit’s Take in U.S. v. Thin Elk

Scott Courrege
Aug 9
3 min read

Updated: Aug 23

United States v. Thin Elk, No. 24-2855 (8th Cir. Aug. 7, 2025)

Summary

Holding: The Eighth Circuit upheld the denial of a motion to suppress after a traffic stop in which a certified drug dog alerted to a vehicle, leading to discovery of a firearm and drugs. The court held that: (1) Thin Elk, a passenger, lacked standing to challenge the vehicle search; (2) the stop was not unlawfully prolonged; and (3) the canine alert established probable cause to search both the vehicle and Thin Elk.

Importance: Reinforces that mere passengers usually cannot challenge vehicle searches; dog sniffs conducted while officers are still completing traffic-stop tasks are lawful; and certified, reliable drug dogs provide probable cause even without a “final” indication.

Limits: The opinion relies heavily on trial court credibility determinations — difficult to overturn on appeal. Disputes over canine behavior will often be resolved in favor of trained handlers unless there is clear contradictory evidence.

Facts

Date: August 2022
Location: Rosebud Sioux Tribe jurisdiction, South Dakota
Officer Observation: RST Officer Marti saw a black Chevy Impala trying to avoid him; plates registered to a Cadillac.
Traffic Stop: Outside an apartment building; driver (Stead) and passenger (Thin Elk) had no ownership paperwork.
K-9 Deployment: Officer Marrufo arrived with K-9 Iwan while Marti was still running warrant/license checks.
Dog Alert: Iwan alerted to narcotics within ~6–7 seconds of starting the sniff.
Arrests: Warrant for Stead; both Stead and Thin Elk arrested.
Searches:
- Vehicle: Firearm found in backseat.
- Thin Elk: Marijuana baggie and methamphetamine pen found on person.

Issues

Did Thin Elk have standing to challenge the vehicle search as a passenger?
Was the stop unlawfully prolonged before the canine sniff?
Did the dog’s alert provide probable cause to search the vehicle and Thin Elk?

Court’s Decision (Holding)

Affirmed – Evidence stands; suppression motion properly denied.

Reasoning

1. Standing to Challenge Vehicle Search

Rule: Passengers without ownership rights generally lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in a vehicle.
Application: Stead said the car belonged to her boyfriend; Thin Elk had no proof of ownership or control.
Result: No standing to contest the car search (United States v. Lindsey, Davis).

2. No Unlawful Prolongation of Stop

Traffic-stop tasks include checking driver’s license, warrants, and registration.
Marti was still running license/warrant checks when Iwan began sniffing.
No evidence officers delayed tasks just to wait for the dog.
Credibility: Trial court credited Marti’s testimony that he learned of Stead’s warrant after the sniff — appellate court defers to that finding.
Result: Stop lawfully ongoing during dog sniff (Rodriguez, Harry, Fuehrer).

3. Dog Alert as Probable Cause

Reliability: Iwan and Marrufo certified since 2016; re-certified annually; monthly training; no failures.
Senior trainer testified Iwan found all odors in last training.
Defense Expert: Dr. Cablk questioned the alert, suggested cognitive bias; court found her opinion speculative and outweighed by handler/trainer testimony.
Legal Standard: A trained, certified dog’s alert alone can provide probable cause (Florida v. Harris, Winters).
Full “final indication” not required (Holleman).
Result: Alert established probable cause to search vehicle; Thin Elk could challenge search of his person but that search flowed lawfully from probable cause and arrest.

Street Takeaways for Officers

Passenger Limits: Passengers generally can’t challenge vehicle searches — but they can challenge their own detention/search.
Dog Sniff Timing: Conducting a dog sniff while still handling traffic-stop tasks avoids “prolongation” problems.
Credibility Counts: Detailed, consistent testimony from handlers and trainers carries heavy weight in court.
Probable Cause from Alerts: Certified, reliable dogs don’t need to perform a specific “final” indication for their alert to justify a search.
Dispatch Delays: Document proactive steps (e.g., running checks on in-car computer) to show diligence if challenged.

Disclaimer

This case brief is for training and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice. Always consult your agency’s legal advisor or prosecutor for case-specific guidance.