Supreme Court rules that Police can’t extend traffic stop for Dog Sniff

quote:

---

A police officer pulled over Rodriguez just after midnight on March 27, 2012, after Rodriguez's car was seen veering onto the road's shoulder.

After the initial stop, in which Rodriguez said he swerved to avoid a pothole, the officer wrote a written warning. But before allowing Rodriguez to drive away, the officer asked if the police dog could walk around the vehicle. That added about eight minutes to the stop.

Rodriguez declined, but the officer insisted. The dog then detected the drugs. Rodriguez was indicted on one count of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. He pleaded guilty pending his appeal and was sentenced to five years in prison.

---

quote:

---

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday placed a new limit on when police can use drug-sniffing dogs, ruling the dogs cannot be employed after a routine traffic stop has been completed if there is no reasonable suspicion about the presence of drugs in the vehicle.

---

quote:

---

In an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court held that a traffic stop lengthened purely to conduct a dog sniff without reasonable suspicion would violate the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

---

quote:

---

Police officers violate the Constitution when they extend an otherwise completed traffic stop to allow time for a trained dog to sniff for drugs, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled.

The justices, voting 6-3, said that officers must let the driver leave unless they have specific reasons to suspect the car is carrying contraband.

Police authority “ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are -- or reasonably should have been -- completed,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority.

---

quote:

---

Writing for the group, Thomas said Ginsburg’s reasoning would link the constitutionality of a drug sniff to the officer’s efficiency in completing the traffic stop.

Thomas also said the officer could have arrested Rodriguez and taken him to the police station just on the basis of the traffic violation. He pointed to a 2001 Supreme Court decision allowing arrests for the criminal offense of failing to wear a seatbelt.

“But because he made Rodriguez wait for seven or eight extra minutes until a dog arrived, he evidently committed a constitutional violation,” Thomas wrote. “Such a view of the Fourth Amendment makes little sense.”

---