Supreme Court Rules Extending Traffic Stop For Dog Sniff Unconstitutional

bmxeroh writes: The Supreme Court ruled today (PDF) that a police officer may not extend a traffic stop beyond the time needed to complete the tasks related to that stop for the purposes of allowing a trained dog to sniff for drugs. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority (6-3) that police authority "ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are — or reasonably should have been — completed." The case, Rodriguez v. United States, 13-9972, all started with Rodriguez was stopped in Nebraska for driving out of his lane. After he was given the ticket for that infraction, he was made to wait an additional seven to eight minutes for a drug dog to arrive which promptly alerted to the presence of drugs in the car. Upon search, the officers found a small bag of methamphetamine in his possession.

Comments

Repeal the Fourth Amendment

[OrangeTide]

It's time we repeal the Fourth Amendment. Police need to be able to find all the criminals using any means necessary. Won't someone please think of the children!!

(And if you post arguments against this proposal, I'll push to repeal the First Amendment as well)

Re:...Coming Soon

[thedonger]

Drug sniffing dogs are no more addicted to drugs than bomb sniffing dogs are addicted to explosives, cash sniffing dogs addicted to cash or cadaver sniffing dogs addicted to dead people. Seriously, dogs have keen noses and will find whatever they are trained to find. The rumor that dogs are turned into drug addicts in order to find drugs is pure unadulterated bullshit.

Except this one cash sniffing dog I saw -- gold grills; Rolex; diamond studs in his ears as large as dog biscuits...

Re:A sane supreme court decision?

[StikyPad]

A Civic Si is about as fast as a nun in a chastity belt that's been welded shut. Congrats for managing to get a speeding ticket, but honestly, keep it under 25 in those residential areas.