Junebug
Well-known member
The SCOTUS held today that officers may not, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, extend a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff of the perimeter of the car for contraband without suspicion that the car actually contains contraband. The SCOTUS has previously ruled that a dog sniff conducted in the timeframe of a normal traffic stop is constitutional regardless of whether such suspicion exists. Today's ruling declines to extend that holding when the traffic stop is extended--by as little as 8 minutes--to conduct the sniff.
Ginsburg wrote the opinion, and was joined by the other liberals, Roberts, and Scalia, who again breaks ranks with the other conservatives to rule in favor of a strong Fourth Amendment.
The dissent would have focused on the overall length of the traffic stop, including the sniff, rather than the fact the stop was extended to accomplish the sniff, to conclude that the overall time (about 30 minutes) was reasonable and thus constitutional. The dissent also would have found adequate particularized suspicion to conduct the sniff.
I don't know that the case will have any real-world impact because officers will be able to claim they were still processing the traffic stop when the sniff was conducted, a claim that will be difficult to disprove. This case was unusual in that the officer admitted the purposes of the traffic stop were over and he detained the defendants for the additional time solely to conduct the sniff. Unfortunately, one side effect of the decision may be that officers will take their time in conducting the traffic purposes of the stop in order to give the K9 officer enough time to conduct the sniff.
ETA link: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf
Ginsburg wrote the opinion, and was joined by the other liberals, Roberts, and Scalia, who again breaks ranks with the other conservatives to rule in favor of a strong Fourth Amendment.
The dissent would have focused on the overall length of the traffic stop, including the sniff, rather than the fact the stop was extended to accomplish the sniff, to conclude that the overall time (about 30 minutes) was reasonable and thus constitutional. The dissent also would have found adequate particularized suspicion to conduct the sniff.
I don't know that the case will have any real-world impact because officers will be able to claim they were still processing the traffic stop when the sniff was conducted, a claim that will be difficult to disprove. This case was unusual in that the officer admitted the purposes of the traffic stop were over and he detained the defendants for the additional time solely to conduct the sniff. Unfortunately, one side effect of the decision may be that officers will take their time in conducting the traffic purposes of the stop in order to give the K9 officer enough time to conduct the sniff.
ETA link: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf
Last edited:
