Posted on 04/21/2015 8:46:53 AM PDT by GIdget2004
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that the Constitution forbids police from holding a suspect without probable cause, even for fewer than 10 extra minutes.
Writing on behalf of the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg declared that the constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure prevent police from extending an otherwise completed traffic stop to allow for a drug-sniffing dog to arrive.
“We hold that a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures,” she ruled.
The case, Rodriguez v. United States, was brought by a man who was pulled over for driving on the shoulder of a Nebraska highway. After the police pulled him over, checked his license and issued a warning for his erratic driving, the officer asked whether he could walk his drug-sniffing dog around the vehicle. The driver, Dennys Rodriguez, refused. However, the officer nonetheless detained him for “seven or eight minutes” until a backup officer arrived with a dog of his own.
After sniffing around the car, the dog detected drugs, and Rodriguez was indicted for possessing methamphetamine. In all, the stop lasted less than 30 minutes.
According to the Supreme Court, though, that search of Rodriguez’s car was illegal, and the evidence gathered in it should not be used at trial. While officers may use a dog to sniff around a car during the course of a routine traffic stop, they cannot extend the length of the stop in order to carry it out....
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy disagreed with the ruling, arguing that police can reasonably detain people to investigate other possible violations of the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Fortunately this has long been the law in Indiana.
Well, they can still plant evidence, right?
Yeah, right. Next time someone gets pulled over and refuses a search and the cops tell him/her to wait while the K-9 unit is dispatched they’ll just say “I don’t have to wait!” and then drive away. Let’s see how that turns out. :>}
Takes too long to grow.
Always surprising when SCOTUS rules in favor of what’s left of the Fourth Amendment.
Scalia and Roberts side with Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg. Don’t see that every day.
I am disappointed with Thomas and Alito.
easily circumvented when the cop takes his time writing the traffic ticket
So, what’s to prevent the cop from taking his time checking out the driver and registration of the car while asking for a canine unit to respond before the stop has been completed ( in this case the issuing of the warning).
On April 21, 2015, I agreed with Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
There will now be cases where cops write tickets V E R Y S L O W L Y >.........................................
Me too.
That I didn’t know. Our local sheriffs dept only has 1 dog, I think. They routinely detain people until the k-9 unit arrives.
The way it will turn out is that if any evidence is found, it will be thrown out in court. So, no ... you don’t leave, your lawyer gets the evidence thrown out!
Under Indiana law, absent probable cause, the police can detain you during a traffic stop for no longer than it takes to write the ticket and dispose of the infraction.
The LEO’s really do not like anyone questioning their authority.
That’s good news ... fewer tickets for the cop ... :-) ...
No, you don’t argue “your case” with the cops ... your lawyer does that in court ... :-) ...
Ginsburg believes this is unreasonable search and seizure but will undoubtedly have no problem with this:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.