link to PDF -> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...-9972_p8k0.pdf
Short is, K9 officer stops a guy, waits 8 minutes for backup to arrive, then uses dog to get a hit. SCOTUS ruled that the 8 minutes he waited for backup was unreasonable under the 4th amendment.
The way I am interpreting this is that since the K9 was on location already, waiting for backup, though standard policy, violates the reasonable extension of Rodriguez's stop for investigation.
Opinions?
VDMSR.com
Chief Developer for V Development Group
Everything I post I do so as a private individual who is not representing any company or organization.
I'm good with it.
"For a moment he felt good about this. A moment or two later he felt bad about feeling good about it. Then he felt good about feeling bad about feeling good about it and, satisfied, drove on into the night."
-- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy --
I don't mean to be a dick by not reading the PDF (I just don't have enough time at the moment), but can anyone summarize the nature of the stop? Why was the vehicle stopped in the first place? Why did the officer want his K9 to sniff the car? Etc.
"If you run into an a**hole in the morning, you ran into an a**hole. If you run into a**holes all day, you're the a**hole." - Raylan Givens
first paragraph:Originally Posted by Byron
Officer Struble, a K–9 officer, stopped petitioner Rodriguez for driving
on a highway shoulder, a violation of Nebraska law. After Struble attended
to everything relating to the stop, including, inter alia, checking
the driver’s licenses of Rodriguez and his passenger and issuing a
warning for the traffic offense, he asked Rodriguez for permission to
walk his dog around the vehicle. When Rodriguez refused, Struble
detained him until a second officer arrived. Struble then retrieved
his dog, who alerted to the presence of drugs in the vehicle. The ensuing
search revealed methamphetamine. Seven or eight minutes
elapsed from the time Struble issued the written warning until the
dog alerted.
Rodriguez
VDMSR.com
Chief Developer for V Development Group
Everything I post I do so as a private individual who is not representing any company or organization.
I'm happy with this ruling.
#RESIST
Wow! I guess I wasn't litigious enough growing up. I could've been case law. I was detained longer for sitting on the side of a residential yet highly trafficked roadway as a teenager waiting for my g/f to come back and follow me back to a party or something. I was 18 and they held me for about 20 minutes even after I told them to just call or go to their house and confirm my story. They eventually confirmed my story. Needless to say I was pretty pissed. I was not the calmer more rationale adult yet.
Fairness leads to extinction much faster than harsh parameters.
There were two legal issues at play.
1) Whether the detention of Rodriguez was allowed in order to wait for the backup to arrive when no other suspicion was in play after the business of the traffic stop was completed.
2) Whether the time required for the backup to arrive was reasonable under the 4th Amendment because there was no suspicion for illegal drugs during the traffic stop.
The court did not rule on question number 1, which remains outstanding.
SCOTUS ruled that, since there was no evidence that would lead to suspicion of drugs, the time it took for the traffic stop and to issue the warning/ticket is all the time the Gov't may hold the person. Once Rodriguez indicated he did not want to wait, they had to let him go because there was no evidence to suspect drugs. If they had conducted the K9 search during the traffic stop without unreasonably lengthening the traffic stop, then it would have been legal.
I think it was properly decided. If this is allowed, then the time can be extended to whatever the Gov't wants it to be. People could be detained for hours while they go through their cars with a fine-toothed comb without any evidence of a crime beyond the traffic stop.
I am also disturbed by the detention. Telling a police officer that you do not give permission for a search should not be a reason to be cuffed. That is an even more dangerous escalation. Imagine cops showing up at your front door saying they want to come in without a warrant, you say NO, then they cuff you and interrogate you until they DO have something you said as reason to get a warrant....dangerous in my view.
Cody
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;
He was accused of driving on the shoulder of the road.
ETA - This had already been posted. Guess I was reading the PDF for too long.Officer Struble, a K–9 officer, stopped petitioner Rodriguez for driving on a highway shoulder, a violation of Nebraska law. After Struble at- tended to everything relating to the stop, including, inter alia, check- ing the driver’s licenses of Rodriguez and his passenger and issuing a warning for the traffic offense, he asked Rodriguez for permission to walk his dog around the vehicle. When Rodriguez refused, Struble detained him until a second officer arrived. Struble then retrieved his dog, who alerted to the presence of drugs in the vehicle. The en- suing search revealed methamphetamine. Seven or eight minutes elapsed from the time Struble issued the written warning until the dog alerted.
I'm happy with the decision.
The vehicle was stopped for driving on the shoulder of a highway. The officer who conducted the stop was a K-9 officer. His K-9 was in the car with him. Apparently the driver ended up on the shoulder and veered back into the lane. Standard traffic stop stuff ensued -- DL, registration, insurance, etc. Rodriguez was asked to step out of the car and return to the officer's vehicle. Rodriguez, after being informed that this was not mandatory, refused. The officer ran the driver's information and returned to the vehicle. He asked the passenger for his ID and questioned him about where they were going. The officer then ran a check on the passenger and returned to the vehicle with a written warning ticket. At this point, all the documents -- IDs, registration, insurance -- as well as the written warning had been returned. This is important because at this point the stop is over. Based on previous case law, a reasonable person would feel unfree to leave if the officer still has the IDs and such. Once that stuff is returned, however, the driver is usually free to go.
However, the officer testified that he did not consider the driver free to go. He asked for permission to conduct a search by walking the drug dog around the vehicle. The driver refused. The officer then instructed the driver to turn off the vehicle, exit the same, and stand in front of the patrol car while the officer waited for backup. The driver did so. Backup arrived and the drug dog was led around the vehicle. The dog alerted and meth was found. From the time the warning was issued to the time the dog alerted, about eight minutes had elapsed.
The writers of the opinion do not detail why the officer felt cause to continue the stop. Note that I haven't gotten through the full opinion, but only the facts and procedural history section.
Thanks, everyone. Given the circumstances, I support the court's decision.
"If you run into an a**hole in the morning, you ran into an a**hole. If you run into a**holes all day, you're the a**hole." - Raylan Givens
Reply With Quote