SCOTUS: LE can not make you wait for a drug sniffing dog during a traffic stop

[Eurodriver]

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-...o-wait-for-dog

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/20...traffic-stops/

A win for freedom. The 2nd link answers many questions.

I love the tone of the convo between SCOTUS and the Govt.

Gov't asks: "But if we do the traffic infraction paperwork really really fast, can we pretty please use the extra time to bring a dog in?"

SCOTUS, in effect, says "You really don't understand the 4th Amendment, do you?"

[ABNAK]

There will be some heads exploding here shortly.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Frankly, there should be double blind certification of dogs ability to detect contraband. You'd never be able to present evidence of a scientific nature with the standards used to calibrate and validate a dog.

[Chameleox]

There will be some heads exploding here shortly.

Not really. SCOTUS made similar rulings in the past. See Illinois v. Caballes and Arizona v. Johnson (funny how Arizona often shows up in Landmark SCOTUS/Police cases), concerning how long a traffic stop can be extended, if at all, for purposes of investigations not related to the stop.

IME, departments and K-9 units have been using these cases as benchmarks in my area since at least the Caballes decision in 2005. Bottom line is that if a stop for a traffic violation is extended beyond the time it takes for an officer to diligently compete the traffic violation investigation and ticket, it's on the officer to show that there was reasonable suspicion to investigate further criminal activity. Doing stuff really fast or slow to buy more time was never OK.

Here's the new ruling: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...-9972_p8k0.pdf

Pay attention to the beginning of the Court's ruling:
Syllabus, 1:

Absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.

And Syllabus, 2:

The determination adopted by the District Court that detention for the dog sniff was not independently supported by individualized suspicion was not reviewed by the Eighth Circuit. That question therefore remains open for consideration on remand.

See Justice Ginsburg's opening paragraph in her Majority Opinion for further clarification.

Putting these two findings together, K9 sniffs are still OK if the officers can show that it was based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause independent of the traffic stop (making the investigation a Terry stop or an inquiry of further criminal acts, vs a mere traffic stop). Second, apparently the 8th Circuit did not consider whether or not there was reasonable suspicion to detain the accused for a drug offense, regardless of the traffic stop. So apparently Rodriguez, the driver, may still be convicted.

Both the affirming and dissenting opinions are good reads. Alito's dissent hinges on two points: first, that the ruling is unnecessary in light of other SCOTUS rulings, specifically Caballes, and second, that the officer's observations of the driver and passenger could constitute reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, thus justifying the prolonged stop (and therefore, the dog sniff). So, back to the 8th it goes.

[ramairthree]

Won't the
"I detected the order of marijuana" line by the LEO pretty much undo this.

There is RS/PC to bring in a dog.

Anyways,
some of the people want freedom. Some want safety.

Some LEOs want a little leeway to get something on some pretty bad guys, some LEOs want full on powers to get something on anybody.

This is a country that had pre signed search warrants on hand for roadblocks during the DC sniper scare. PC for a search was refusing to consent to a search and nobody answered to that.

[PD Sgt.]

Chameleox pretty much nailed it. This is not really anything new.

[Doc Safari]

Frankly we have reached a point in this country where people do what they want regardless of what the law or the Supreme Court says.

We are in a banana republic police state.

[skywalkrNCSU]

Frankly we have reached a point in this country where people do what they want regardless of what the law or the Supreme Court says.

We are in a banana republic police state.

I think maybe you should take a trip to a real banana republic police state before you start comparing the U.S. to one. Things might not be perfect but that is a bit much.

[Doc Safari]

I think maybe you should take a trip to a real banana republic police state before you start comparing the U.S. to one. Things might not be perfect but that is a bit much.

Okay, so I exaggerate a tad. I thought most people would recognize that.

[nova3930]

I think maybe you should take a trip to a real banana republic police state before you start comparing the U.S. to one. Things might not be perfect but that is a bit much.

We're not there yet but if we keep going down the road of lawfare (see the WI John Doe investigations or Rick Perry indictment for examples) and using the machinery of gov't to harass and intimidate political opponents (IRS scandal anyone?) we will be soon enough...