Rodriguez v. U.S. Can police extend a traffic stop for a dog sniff? Jennifer Hammack Brittain hunt

Precendent City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (1998) Road Blocks for drug searches unconstitutional Illinois v. Caballes (2004) Canine Sniff during a legal traffic stop does not require reasonable suspicion.

Rodriguez Holding: Absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures. Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on April 21, 2015. Justice Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Alito joined and in which Justice Kennedy joined as to all but Part III MAJORITY: GINSBURG, SCALIA, ROBERTS, SOTOMAYOR, BREYER, KAGAN DISSENT: KENNEDY, THOMAS, ALITO

Procedural History 1) The Magistrate Judge concluded that prolonging the stop by “seven to eight minutes” for the dog sniff was only a de minimis intrusion on Rodriguez’s Fourth Amendment rights and was for that reason permissible. 2) The District Court then denied the motion to suppress. 3) The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Noting that delay was an acceptable “de minimis intrusion and declining to reach the question whether Struble had reasonable suspicion to continue Rodriguez’s detention after issuing the written warning.

In a nutshell… Officer’s stop ruled unconstitutional in 6-3 vote. Extension after completion of stop violates 4th Amendment Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority: “[Dog sniffs] become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond reasonable time to complete the mission of issuing a ticket”. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the dissent: “…bringing the overall duration of the stop to 29 minutes. Because the stop was reasonably executed, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred”.

Majority “A seizure for a traffic violation justifies a police investigation of that violation” – not more — and “authority for the seizure . . . ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are – or reasonably should have been—completed.”

Facts One midnight in Nebraska, “K-9” Officer Morgan Struble was driving alone with his K9 unit when he saw Rodriguez’s car drift over the shoulder line and then jerk back onto the road. Struble stopped the car, asked for an explanation (“pothole”), and took Rodriguez’s license, registration, and proof of insurance to run a records check back in his patrol car. He asked Rodriguez to accompany him, but when Rodriguez asked if he had to and Struble said no, Rodriguez “decided to wait in his own vehicle.” Struble returned to Rodriguez’s car, began to question a passenger, and then went back to his patrol car to run a records check on the passenger. He also radioed for a back-up officer (officer safety). With the second records check still negative, Struble went back to Rodriguez’s car again, finished writing a warning ticket, and asked permission to walk his dog around the car. When Rodriguez said no, Struble ordered him from the car and searched with k9. K9 reported and officers found methamphetamine.

Entire stop was 29 minutes; average traffic stop is about 30 minutes Timeline of the Stop 12:06 AM Car pulled over 12:27 AM Warning issued and explained 12:33 AM Sherriff arrived with K9 12:34 AM Dog Alerts Entire stop was 29 minutes; average traffic stop is about 30 minutes

The Real “Win” In In Rodriguez, the majority described a dog sniff as “a measure aimed at detecting evidence.” It sounds like SCOTUS is finally willing to admit dog sniffs are searches. Justice Thomas in his dissent said a “dog sniff … is directed at uncovering” contraband. And recall that in Jardines, Justice Scalia noted that a dog sniff, even on a porch that is visible and generally accessible to the public, can be a search because it is directed at “obtaining information.”

Thomas’ dissent “The only question here is whether an officer executed a stop in a reasonable manner when he waited to conduct a dog sniff until after he had given the driver a written warning and a backup unit had arrived, bringing the overall duration of the stop to 29 minutes. Because the stop was reasonably executed, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred.”

Policy Implications of Rodriguez With Illinois v. Caballes, ruling in US v. Rodriguez becomes clouded. Fourth Amendment’s unreasonable seizure is now violated, following the completion of traffic stop. 2 possible directions for police practices. Dog sniffs will become lessened significantly Dog sniffs will remain relatively unchanged

Policy Implications according to Thomas “Under [the majority’s]reasoning, a traffic stop made by a rookie could be executed in a reasonable manner, whereas the same traffic stop made by a knowledgeable, veteran officer in precisely the same circumstances might not, if in fact his knowledge and experience made him capable of completing the stop faster. We have long rejected interpretations of the Fourth Amendment that would produce such haphazard results, and I see no reason to depart from our consistent practice today.”

Rodriguez: Good or Bad Precedent? What do you think the implications of this decision will be??

Works Cited City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-1030 (last visited Nov 2, 2015). Rodriguez v. United States, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/13-9972 (last visited Nov 2, 2015). Rodriguez v. United States, Supremecourt.gov, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf (last visited Nov 2, 2015).