You should know that you NEVER consent to a vehicle search by police. But you may have heard of police officers being able to “sniff” around your car with a drug dog. They then use that as probable cause to search the vehicle. Sometimes the officer who stops you might not have a K9 but will Radio for one and make you wait. Cops may use a drug dog sniff as evidence against you. They may NOT make you wait for a K9 to show up.
That is not allowed per Rodriguez v. United States, a 2015 ruling by the Supreme Court. If an officer tries to make you wait for a drug dog – if they have no other evidence – you should tell them “Rodriguez v. United States, and now I’m calling lawyer – Richard Gustafson.” Always have My number (843)249-2252 programmed into your cell. I might not be able to be there at that moment, but wheels will start in motion.
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. The police pulled him over, checked his license and issued a warning for his erratic driving. Then the officer asked whether he could walk his drug-sniffing dog around the vehicle.
Refused the Search
The driver, Dennys Rodriguez, refused. However, the officer nonetheless detained him for “seven or eight minutes” until a backup officer arrived. Then, the original officer retrieved his dog.
The dog detected drugs after sniffing around the car. They indicted Rodriguez 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. They could not use the evidence gathered at trial. 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.
“[T]he tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure’s ‘mission’ — to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop,” Ginsburg ruled. “Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are — or reasonably should have been — completed.”
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy disagreed with the ruling. They argued that police can reasonably detain people to investigate other possible violations of the law.
In his dissenting opinion, Thomas said that majority’s ruling makes “meaningless” the legal difference between “reasonable suspicion” — which does not authorize a search of someone’s property — and “probable cause,” which does.
“Had Officer Struble arrested, handcuffed, and taken Rodriguez to the police station for his traffic violation, he would have complied with the Fourth Amendment,” he wrote, using the majority’s argument.
“But because he made Rodriguez wait for seven or eight extra minutes until a dog arrived, he evidently committed a constitutional violation. Such a view of the Fourth Amendment makes little sense.”
From The Hill