
Supreme Court Rules Extending Traffic Stop for Dog Sniff Unconstitutional [pdf] - dmitrygr
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf
======
freerobby
It's pretty demoralizing to me that there are 3 SCOTUS justices who think it's
Constitutional to detain people without probable cause as long as it's not for
very long.

As I think Justice Roberts once quipped, if you "briefly" hold someone without
cause, you've "briefly" violated their Constitutional rights.

~~~
justonepost
I disagree. That's not the problem. The issue here is not the detention, it's
the dog sniff. Why didn't the cop just ask in the beginning if he minded if he
did the dog sniff? Why can't a cop just call in the dog squad while he lingers
going through the paperwork of a regular traffic stop? That's what is going to
happen here. He's not detaining, he's just finishing up the traffic stop.

what's demoralizing here is the war on drugs is getting us nowhere except
rampant crime, huge homicide rates, and over crowded prisons full of
minorities.

~~~
MCRed
If everyone who opposed the War on Drugs had instead of voting for it's
Architect in the last two elections, or the other guy, had actually voted for
either the Green Party or Libertarian Party candidates, things would be very
different in this country.

Even if both the Greens and Libertarians still lost, the Democrats and
Republicans would have been shocked out of complacency and rushing to end the
war on drugs.

The problem is, everyone's voting for evil because they fear the other evil is
greater.... yet there were two "Good" candidates running!

~~~
briandear
Vote for Rand Paul in the Republicican primary next year. Even though he's
currently base-pandering to some extent (which is necessary to win the
Republican nomination,) he's the only candidate with a chance of winning (i.e.
Rep or Dem) that has called for an end to NSA domestic surveillance, drug
decriminalization as well as the end of criminal sentencing that
disproportionately affects the poor. Paul is the closest thing to a
libertarian candidate that actually could win a U.S. Presidential election. A
vote for Greens or Libertarians is a wasted vote. Nobody cares about 5% of the
vote that's done in protest. Ross Perot was the closest thing to a third party
win in modern history and he barely got 20% of the vote.

Look at Rand Paul's positions carefully; don't let the right (or left) media
distort his fundamental positions and I would bet that many of you guys would
be pleasantly surprised; especially when compared to Hilary Clinton's
positions, both stated as well as demonstrated during her time in the U.S.
senate and as Secstate.

------
etjossem
Before you tell your friends that Jay-Z has only 98 problems now: Rodriguez v.
US _doesn 't_ say a dog sniff can't be part of a traffic stop.

Alito mentioned in a separate dissent that - as a result of this ruling - he
expects officers to change the sequence the activities involved in a traffic
stop so that the license check and citation are not completed until a dog
sniff is done. This ruling may be a bit of a moot point, except in cases where
officers don't follow the proscribed sequence of events.

~~~
hacknat
Read the opinion carefully, it explicitly says that the order of events is not
justification enough. You are right in saying that this doesn't prohibit dog
sniffs in all traffic stops. Period. However, you are wrong that stating that
a dog sniff can be justified by simple ordering, see page 8:

>>The critical question, then, is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or
after the officer issues a ticket, as JUSTICE ALITO supposes, post, at 2–4,
but whether conducting the sniff “prolongs”—i.e., adds time to—“the stop,”
supra, at 6.

and page 7:

>>a dog sniff, unlike the routine measures just mentioned, is not an ordinary
incident of a traffic stop

SCOTUS _is_ in fact saying that a dog sniff must be supported by what they
call "individualized suspicion".

~~~
lsiebert
Now they will simply add an extra officer. As long as he conducts the search
while the other officer does traffic related things, I don't see how this
would prevent a dog sniff search.

~~~
dragonwriter
To do that, you'd have to know in advance which officers were going to be
making traffic stops in which they would want an excuse to make an otherwise
unconstitutional excuse so you could preposition K9 units to assist them, or
you'd have to have every patrol car have two officers and a dog. Either of
these is impractical.

~~~
tptacek
We should cut to the subtext here and stipulate: trained dog handling officers
can cue their dogs to alert.

So the problem is, if you're on a traffic patrol and already have a drug dog
(many do), then the following sequence remains blessed:

1\. Make a reasonable traffic stop

2\. Approach vehicle with drug dog

3\. Cue dog to alert concurrent with traffic stop handling

4\. Conduct car search based on cued alert

No delay has been added in this procedure, and by the letter of the opinion
today, it looks like that search will hold up.

~~~
gambiter
What happens when a large percentage of the cued alerts result in nothing
found via search?

~~~
MertsA
[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-06/news/ct-met-
ca...](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-06/news/ct-met-canine-
officers-20110105_1_drug-sniffing-dogs-alex-rothacker-drug-dog)

Evidently a Supreme Court Ruling. Hopefully there will be a ruling that drug
dogs aren't considered probable cause soon.

------
SilasX
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.

~~~
MBlume
I suspect you'd need to call their bluff and then try to get whatever the K9
find thrown out (assuming they had to delay you to let them arrive)

~~~
SilasX
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.

------
anigbrowl
This articulation that the tolerable extent of a stop (or any other
investigation) 'is limited to the [personal] seizure's mission' is an
excellent articulation of principle that might have a bearing on many other
cases.

See for example this one - I have no idea whether this is appeallable
procedurally (given the time that has elapsed since the conviction and so on)
but the principle has troubled me ever since I read about it 5 years ago:
[http://www.alternet.org/story/146064/loud_sex_enough_for_cop...](http://www.alternet.org/story/146064/loud_sex_enough_for_cops_to_search_your_home,_court_rules)

Here a police officer who reasonably suspected a rape or some similarly
violent crime based on reports of loud screaming visited a home. Defendant
explained that the screaming took place in the course of enthusiastic sexual
activity and Defendant's girlfriend corroborated this explanation. The police
officer nevertheless requested permission to search, which was granted. During
the search, marijuana was discovered and defendant was arrested for that.

To my mind the admissibility of evidence found during a search should have
been limited to the original purpose; while it would not be entirely
unreasonable to confiscate contraband found during a search, but it's not
reasonable to prosecute the guy on that basis.

Where it gets tricky is prioritizing the things you prosecute. To see why,
turn it around - suppose the police officer knocked on the door to investigate
an allegation of drug possession or trafficking, but in the course of the
investigation discovered the perpetration of a rape or murder. We would not
want the perpetrator of such a crime to get away with it just because the
police officer was unaware of it during an initial legitimate investigation
and stumbled across the evidence by accident.

~~~
dsp1234
There are some important differences between the case that you cite and this
case.

Specifically, in this case the officer said that he had no reasonable
suspicion that another crime occurred, and the dog sniffing was not part of
the exception for "officer safety".

In the case you cited, the officers had an objective "reasonable suspicion"
that a crime occurred (though obviously the accused in the case suggested it
was not objectively reasonable, the court disagreed). Then during an
investigation of the house, both for evidence of the crime in question, and to
check the area for officer safety, the marijuana was found.

If evidence of a crime if found while investigating a different crime (where
the reasonable suspicion is met) or where it falls under the exception for
"officer safety", then it's fair game.

This decision doesn't change that standard, or even touch it since reasonable
suspicion, and officer safety were not relevant to this case, and were
relevant to the cited case.

So on the surface, they may appear similar, but hit different points of the
law. On the flip side, had evidence of the meth been visible in this case, or
the officer had any other reasonable suspicion of a crime, then this case
would have likely been decided differently.

~~~
xaa
The question of whether the officer had reasonable suspicion here seems to be
in dispute. The lower courts found there was no reasonable suspicion, and the
majority assumed that in their response.

Alito and Thomas' dissents cite some fairly compelling evidence that the
officer _did_ have reasonable suspicion: the vehicle occupants looked nervous,
the officer smelled the overwhelming scent of air freshener (often used to
mask drugs), and their story didn't make much sense.

The dissents are a really good read: I'm against the drug war full stop but
had to admit that within our current legal framework, this decision doesn't
make much sense.

~~~
trhway
>Alito and Thomas' dissents cite some fairly compelling evidence that the
officer did have reasonable suspicion: the vehicle occupants looked nervous,
the officer smelled the overwhelming scent of air freshener (often used to
mask drugs), and their story didn't make much sense.

when i was stopped by police (2 times during 15 years in US - for non-attached
sticker and for allegedly "not obeying traffic control device") i was so
nervous that my speech was pretty slurred and hands were shaking even like 10
minutes after the encounter, my story at least in the second case hardly made
any sense - was driving home after hiking for several hours in the hills
during July heatwave weekend and wasn't sure what sign the police was talking
about... I guess i was saved by not-using air-freshener in my car - i guess
nobody uses the smell of extremely sweaty dusty 40 year old male for masking
the drugs. Thanks, God!

~~~
mapt
Yeah, this happened to me around a decade ago - same reason for stop,
actually, tag holder was busted, and ended up pulled over at 2AM. Nervous
voice, endorphin shakes, couldn't even figure out which bit of paper was the
registration at first. Nothing to actually hide, just fear.

Maybe having a crippling phobia of police stops is counterproductive, but it
seems entirely warranted on the basis of what they're allowed and instructed
to do. Spiders, snakes, public speaking, and flying are a hell of a lot safer
than interacting with a police officer (one you're not related to) in any
capacity at this stage of their militarization. And that's if your skin is the
right color.

------
Wingman4l7
Good; now we need to extend this to TSA overreach. They are (ostensibly) there
to prevent weapons from making it onto airplanes, not to investigate large
sums of cash or bust people for narcotics possession:
[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/rules-
change...](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/rules-changed-
after-paul-aide-detained-at-airport/?page=all)

------
hacknat
This is great news, because other than DUI check points or being stopped by an
officer with a dog in their patrol-car (which is just bad luck), I don't see
that the police have a way around this one. I don't have any data, but I read
in _The New Jim Crow_ (good book, fyi) that this procedure accounts for an
incredible amount of drug arrests. Good on ya, SCOTUS.

~~~
BryanB55
>> this procedure accounts for an incredible amount of drug arrests. Good on
ya, SCOTUS

So are you saying you don't think people should be arrested for drugs? How is
it good that it is now harder to arrest for possession?

~~~
dragonwriter
> How is it good that it is now harder to arrest for possession?

It would be easier to arrest for possession if searches, seizures, and arrests
didn't require probable cause, and police could just arrest anyone, anywhere
for any reason or none at all -- and search anything anywhere without consent
for any reason or none at all, and use any evidence so obtained in
prosecution.

Much of the Bill of Rights -- and much of the concept of individual rights
against government underlying and preceding it -- is based on the belief that
making it easier for the government to arrest and prosecute people even for
things that everyone agrees are bad is often less of a benefit than the powers
granted to government in order to achieve that are a harm.

So that's at least one school of thought on how this could be good even though
it makes it harder to arrest for possession, even if one things that arrests
for possession (where actual possession occurs) are a good thing.

~~~
BryanB55
Phrased this way makes sense. The parent comment sounded more like "drugs
should be legal" than it did about individual rights.

And maybe they should be legal, I'm not sure what would help society more so I
don't particularly have a stance either way.

Unfortunately those who think they should be downvoted this question. I guess
they'd rather not argue their opinion and just hide any comment that questions
their opinion.

~~~
hn_
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
(Blackstone's formulation)

------
stephen-mw
Turning down an optional search of your persons or belongings does not
constitute reasonable suspicion. I wish the courts would have sent a stronger
message to this point. Clearly Officer Struble interpreted mr. Rodriguez
decline as a reason to be suspicious of him.

Always say no. Always decline. This needs to be come the default/norm. Read
about how inaccurate field substance tests are here[0]. People go to jail for
this stuff even though they are law-abiding citizens who actually _didn't_
have anything to hide.

[http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2009/mar/06/feature_citi...](http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2009/mar/06/feature_citing_startling_researc)

~~~
spiritplumber
I'm worried that it will.

------
krschultz
The supreme court often times feels like the only institution protecting the
rights of the citizens. If they ever flip, it's pretty much game over.

------
twoquestions
I fail to see how this matters. As it stands it's perfectly legal to lie to
you about the consequences of not consenting to a search, and even outright
cold blooded murder on a police officer's part is extremely difficult to seek
justice for.

It is a tiny step in the right direction though, hopefully followed by more.

------
pXMzR2A
tl;dr

> The critical question is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after
> the officer issues a ticket, but whether conducting the sniff adds time to
> the stop. [p. 3]

~~~
lsiebert
Yep. Expect two officers from now on, one to have the dog sniff while the
other deals with the traffic citation.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Expect two officers from now on, one to have the dog sniff while the other
> deals with the traffic citation.

If police departments could afford to make every existing single-officer
patrol unit a two-officer K-9 unit, they'd already do that.

~~~
vizeroth
While the K-9 may not be possible for most departments, I know a few
departments in Virginia started requiring all units to have a minimum of two
officers because gas prices were too high to send a second car every time they
needed a second officer on the scene. Of course, the San Diego County
Sheriff's Department can't seem to shut off the engine, park legally, or fit
more than one officer in an SUV.

------
spacemanmatt
All drugs should be legal.

~~~
ctdonath
The issue at hand isn't drug legality, it's delayed exercise of rights. There
are other enumerated & implied rights which are equally trampled on by undue
delays: right to assembly & free speech, delayed by requiring slowly-approved
public assembly permits; right to keep & bear arms, delayed by long background
checks & permit/license approvals (days or months when such information could
be processed in seconds); right to speedy trial, often delayed for years; etc.

------
greenmountin
The opposition did a terrible job of defending dog sniffs during the oral
arguments. They could not articulate a reasonable rule for when they should be
allowed (except that they were ok until the ticket was written).

The justices repeatedly presented hypotheticals, but the guy just didn't get
it.

[1hr MP3 of oral arguments]
[http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2014/2014_13_9972](http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2014/2014_13_9972)

------
moey
Isn't it strange that its normal and "constitutional" for a unrelated dog
sniffing to occur "during" (before the ticket is given) a traffic stop but not
after. What allows to to be legal during but not after? They cited safety
reasons, but I don't understand how searching for unrelated contraband
increases the safety of the officer in any way.

~~~
chrismcb
Allowing a dog sniff to be reasonable suspicion is what is strange. But
unfortunately it is. If you are stopped, such that the police dog can sniff
your car, then they can sniff your car. But the cops can't stop you just to
let the dog sniff, without more suspicion. Since the car is stopped for a
traffic stop, it gives a chance for the dog to go work. Put it another way,
the cop is standing on the side of a road near a traffic light. If the car is
stopped at the light, the dog can sniff away. But the cop can't stop you, or
hold you longer than the light.

------
beedogs
Finally, the Roberts court gets one right.

------
ghshephard
This ruling just created a great business opportunity for those companies
creating technology that can effectively emulate a dog's smell-sensing
capability.

------
aidenn0
IANAL, but this is probably still allowed in Virginia, since all traffic
violations are arrestable offenses, they have cause to detain you.

