Supreme Court rules cops can’t hold suspects to wait for dog

The Hill ^ | 04/21/2015 | Julian Hattem

[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.

[RedStateRocker]

The really sad thing is how many alleged “conservatives” are perfectly OK with a police state, as long as there is a Republican in office and/or the police state is violating the hell out of the rights of people they don’t like and/or doing things they don’t like

Look at all the treasonous morons who supported the PATRIOT act only to realize “hey, there’s a liberal in the WH now, I hate this stupid unconstitutional POS act”. If I hear one more retard, inbred SOB opine that people should be shot merely for running away from the cops I’ll go Libertarian.

[T-Bone Texan]

"...Our local sheriffs dept only has 1 dog...They routinely detain people until the k-9 unit arrives..."

Then they are breaking the law.

[Moonman62]

Scalia and Roberts side with Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg. Don’t see that every day.

...

It happens, but the press has no interest in reporting it.

[zeugma]

I am disappointed with Thomas and Alito.

Me too. Not so much for Alito, as he's a generally reliable vote for the police state. Thomas normally thinks more clearly though. I'll have to read his dissent tonight.

[21twelve]

The first cop had his dog there - why didn’t he just use his? And the court said that they can use dogs to sniff around the car - but just can’t make the person wait. Although perhaps the cop still needs to ask permission.

[RedStateRocker]

The advice I have received, and intend to follow is simple:

I shall ask the officer “Am I free to leave”.

If the answer is ‘yes’ then I shall do so.

If the answer is ‘no’ then I call a lawyer.

I respect the difficult of the job police have, but I have zero trust in any agent of the state, period.

[Forgotten Amendments]

Scalia and Roberts side with Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg. Don’t see that every day.

I'm no lawyer or serious SCOTUS watcher. But this is the third or fourth time that I remember Sotomayor doing the right thing. Is it possible that she's an old school "liberal" who actually believes in civil liberties and reads the Bill Of Rights?

[xzins]

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

That seemed like an oddity to me. At least, I don't understand it. Why could the traffic stop officer not use his own dog, but it was ok to use a follow-on dog from another officer? At least, that's what that part of the article seems to be saying. It could be poorly written, or I could be poorly understanding.

[Moonman62]

I’m no lawyer or serious SCOTUS watcher. But this is the third or fourth time that I remember Sotomayor doing the right thing. Is it possible that she’s an old school “liberal” who actually believes in civil liberties and reads the Bill Of Rights?

...

The conservative and moderate justices are Catholic. The liberal justices are Jewish, except for Sotomayor, she’s Catholic.

[Yogafist]

Prosecutors, and cops for that matter, want to know what courts, and juries will accept, so they know how hard to fight certain cases. For what it is worth, I think this is just a prosecutor trying to firmly place the guardrails. There appears to be much more they could have brought before the court, but then again, we would have much more information on the cop’s testimony which might have been very weak. I don’t think this is the great fourth amendment victory everyone is claiming it to be. I think the government just wanted to know where the court stands.