Slashdot Mirror
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.
I have to agree with the supreme court on principal and we really do have to stand up for our rights lest we loose them. But I would have though the cops had a responsibility to do the search if they suspected an additional crime was being committed. Possibly they were suspicious only due to Mr. Rodriguez's skin color or last name, which clearly shouldn't be permitted. But it they have any other reasonable suspicion that he had drugs why shouldn't they be allowed to investigate. Especially if it's a 7-8 minute process. An hour is unreasonable, but come on, a quick, non-disruptive check seems reasonable.
We do follow a lot of SCOTUS on Slashdot, so I guess the post matches. I'm kind of with the dissent on this if just because the ambiguity of authority this creates. It doesn't look like he was under the influence at the time, but the term "driving out of his lane" does kind of give reasonable cause for drug use, but maybe thats profiling. The article points out that dog searches are legal and its ok to arrest people traffic violations where the search could of been carried out.
I mean think about it, apparently the problem is the officer finished his job then asked the defendant to wait for a second search. If the officer had started a 15 minute search after placing the defendant in his car to ensure he was safe would that have made this incident ok? Searches are legal, but waiting for backup to conduct a search isn't?
Momento Mori
I couldn't believe they got this one right either. I drive a traffic cop's wet dream, a black Honda Civic Si, which I've had since high school. I've been prone to speed so of course I've been pulled over, but the amount of times I've been forced to wait for a damn drug dog because the police officer gives me some line about 'looking under the influence' has been absurd. Twice in Florida, then twice again when I moved here to California. Police officers INSIST I'm under the influence at nearly every traffic stop. Can't a hispanic male just be speeding and not be doing so under the influence? I'm really happy to see this ruling.
The people in the car were acting nervous. Which is apparently an unexpected response to being pulled over by the cops.
Police who are doing these things should be fired without a pension, and criminally charged.
I've been saying this for years, more or less. When a civil servant, from the town dog catcher to president of the US, breaks a law, or writes a law they should be held accountable.
In the case of a police officer when they interpret the law wrong there should be repercussions. When a politician sponsors a bill and its found unconstitutional, there should be repercussions. When a DA files charges against someone and loses, there should be repercussions.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
It doesn't look like he was under the influence at the time, but the term "driving out of his lane" does kind of give reasonable cause for drug use, but maybe thats profiling.
The problem with this logic is that it fails the "prior probability" test.
Suppose a policeman searches and finds the suspect carrying a large amount of cash, say $4000. That's consistent with a (supposed) drug purchase, so the cash can be confiscated under asset forfeiture laws (assets used in the commission of a crime).
Suppose a policeman notes a youtube video of a chemistry experiment showing a balance scale, some beakers, and jars of chemicals. Those are consistent with "meth lab", so the policeman can search and confiscate all the equipment in the poster's house (this has happened).
The problem with each of these, and your position, is that there is significant prior probability that the behaviour in question is *not* indicative of criminal activity. You are reversing the conditional probabilities.
To put it in words, you are equating "probability of driving out-of-lane, given that he's on drugs" (quite high), with "probability that he's using drugs, given out-of-lane driving" (actually, quite low).
People temporarily drive out-of-lane a great deal to avoid animals and small obstacles, and people temporarily drive out-of-lane because they're distracted. The number of people out-of-lane because they're on drugs is vanishingly small.
Taken to extremes (and we know the police will do this), pretty-much *any* behaviour can be considered consistent with drug use.
In the case of the home lab above, it doesn't matter that the poster is missing key components, nor that he only has some of the ingredients. "Meth makers use glassware, he's got glassware, therefore he's a meth maker".
You see where this leads?
If a policeman observes a crime, take the appropriate action - that's fine. If he *observes* another crime while dealing with it, that's fine too.
But that's not a justification to rummage around in a person's rights just to see what can be pinned on the suspect.
If he doesn't observe a crime, he shouldn't go looking for one.
And yet I was stopped and searched on the street in London, with no probable cause at all, just because "there are a lot of drugs in this area". When I asked what would happen if I didn't consent to the search, I was told I'd be arrested.
That made me understand the objection to stop-and-frisk - it's bs to let the cops do this with absolutely no probable cause.
In that case, the ruling would probably be: You can't pull a motorist over for speeding, write him a ticket, and then force him to wait until a Drug Detector 9000 can arrive on the scene.
Now, if all police had small, portable devices that could instantly detect illegal substances (something like a police officer's version of a Star Trek tricorder), then there might have been a different ruling. After all, then the driver would just need to wait for the officer to turn on the device and measure the car for a few seconds. Much less of an inconvenience than "wait almost 10 minutes until a dog gets here." If/when Police Tricorders are invented and rolled out, I'm sure there will be legal cases to define when it is and isn't appropriate to use them.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
There is a lawyer who's doing some nice comics that explain all those intricacies - he has a strip covering dogs.
However, dogs are still BS, for the simple reason that a signal from the dog is considered to be probable cause, which is ridiculous because they can be conditioned quite easily to do so at the handler's signal (and often do it without the signal just to please the handler).
However dogs are nearly useless in this scenario. Its been shown that in a case where there is suspicion dogs "hit" nearly 100% of the time even in controlled situations where its known there is nothing for them to hit on. Dogs are only useful if the handler has no particular suspiscion or, in tracking. In these kinds of stops they are really just props.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Just so you know -- it isn't actually the same here. There's fairly well established case law involving if /police/ require RS. However... individuals /acting like/ police, that aren't actually police... that "just happen" to have an officer present have no such bar.
The particular example I'm thinking of is game and fish wardens, who can demand to search your trunk if you happen to be near a forest and it's hunting season. Or not hunting season but near hunting season and you left somewhere with deer. Oh, and by-the-way, there's an officer nearby who happens to be there for his protection -- and now that your trunk is open, all contents are in plain sight.
It's in state laws, it's been upheld on court challenge.
Additional problems include the 100 mile "border free zone" https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-governments-100-mile-border-zone-map where any border patrol agent may search you for any reason. The population that has no 4th amendment right in this region exceeds 2/3 of the US (that's about 200 million people in case you wonder). Once again, the police might not have the right to search you without a warrant, but if it's customs, ice, border patrol or whatever -- they just might need police or DEA there for their protection.
So yes, you're sort of, just barely technically correct. But in practice, they can and will be present for a search without a warrant.
In these kinds of stops they are really just props.
I remember something from several years back where the police would just say, "Oops! The Dog is reacting to something. Do you want to let us search the car now or do we have to break windows and things like that?"
Whether the dog really was reacting to something would be up to the officer handling the dog. It's not like I'm an expert in dog handling to be able to say, "No, that's not true."