Supreme Court Rules That A Traffic Stop Ends When The 'Objective' Is 'Complete,' Rather Than Whenever The Officer Feels It Is

from the a-little-more-Fourth,-anyone? dept

Another small win for the Fourth Amendment, thanks to the US Supreme Court. With its ruling in the Rodriguez v. US case, law enforcement officers will have to work just a little bit harder to perform unconstitutional searches during traffic stops.

"A seizure for a traffic violation justifies a police investigation of that violation” – not more — and “authority for the seizure . . . ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are – or reasonably should have been—completed…" Traffic stops have to be reasonably short, and unless there is reasonable suspicion of some other crime, officers can’t use the stop as a subterfuge for extraneous investigation. Most specifically, says Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s opinion for the Court, officers can’t prolong a traffic stop just to perform a dog-sniffing drug search.
The unanswered question is how long can a traffic stop last before it becomes "prolonged?" The bright line would appear to be that it becomes prolonged if extended past the point a citizen should feel free to go. For instance, if someone's pulled over for speeding, the instant the officer issues a ticket or warning, the stop is over. Any searches performed past that point (including deploying drug-sniffing dogs) would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment if there's no probable cause.

In Rodriguez's case, he was pulled over and issued a ticket. This should have been the end of the encounter, but the officer went on a fishing expedition, hoping to have Rodriguez grant him permission to have a drug dog sniff his vehicle. Rodriguez refused but the officer detained him until another officer arrived and walked the dog around the vehicle anyway. It alerted and a search of the vehicle uncovered a bag of methamphetamines.

The DOJ argued that law enforcement should have the leeway to handle traffic stops in any fashion they see fit, including holding people without cause until they've exhausted their options (bringing in other officers, performing K-9 searches), even if they've already issued a citation for the offense that predicated the stop. Justice Sotomayor was completely unimpressed by this logic during oral arguments, pointing out that continued deference to law enforcement would turn the Fourth Amendment into a "useless piece of paper."

This decision makes the Fourth Amendment only slightly less "useless." A previous decision has already undermined a great deal of Fourth Amendment protections by giving law enforcement the permission to use nearly any reason imaginable to initiate a stop -- even nonexistent laws. What this does is forbid law enforcement officers from prolonging stops past the point that they've achieved their original objective: the issuance of a ticket or warning (if for a traffic violation). This ruling should turn "Am I free to go?" into a drivers' mantra.

Officers will often prolong stops by asking permission to do a variety of things, being very careful to phrase it as optional (which it is) while still implying that it probably isn't (you don't have anything to hide, right?). "Am I free to go?" can help cut through this clutter. But it probably won't be enough and it definitely won't work every time. In fact, this ruling may have helped restore some Fourth Amendment protections, but in doing so, the specifics create a roadmap for unconstitutional searches. Officers just need to explore their options before issuing a citation.
Have the dog there before you hand over the ticket and you get a sniff, no Constitution allowed. Don’t rush the ticket, because nobody knows how long it does, or should, take to complete the core mission. And if the dog happens to show before it’s done, boom, lawful.

Ask those Frisbee questions before you hand over the paperwork. Seek consent while you still have the driver’s license in hand. Smell the car for that “pungent” odor, peer knowingly for that furtive gesture, or stare carefully for those watery and lethargic eyes, before you hand over the papers.
So, we don't have an answer on the question of how long is too long? What we do have is an endpoint. Everything beyond that is unconstitutional. So, there will be more pressure applied by fishing cops, because consent is the ultimate Fourth Amendment waiver. As long as their words say something their implications don't, it's all perfectly legal. The longer they can delay "completing" the "objective," the more time they'll have to explore their options. According to the Supreme Court, once that citation hits a person's hands, they're free to go. But that endpoint might be five minutes or two hours from the initiation of the stop.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    rahlquist (profile), 22 Apr 2015 @ 12:51pm

    Sure... Objective...

    Objective is write a ticket, ohhhh crap my pen ran out of ink let me call Barney, he carries extra pens in case he has to fill out a bite report from the K9.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 22 Apr 2015 @ 12:51pm

    This should have been the end of the encounter, but the officer went on a fishing expedition, hoping to have Rodriguez grant him permission to have a drug dog sniff his vehicle. Rodriguez refused but the officer detained him until another officer arrived and walked the dog around the vehicle anyway. It alerted and a search of the vehicle uncovered a bag of methamphetamines.

    The term "fishing expedition" implies a certain element of chance, that you're looking for "whatever bites". But when the officer specifically was looking for drugs, and he ended up finding drugs, to me that suggests that he had a reasonable suspicion that was grounded in something objective...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 22 Apr 2015 @ 12:57pm

      Re:

      To me, a "fishing expedition" doesn't exclude the notion that they're fishing for something specific, like drugs. Rather, it's when they're conducting a search without any specific indication that the search is called for.

      "to me that suggests that he had a reasonable suspicion that was grounded in something objective."

      If so, then surely he would have articulated the reasonable suspicion. To me, that he found something indicates that the cop got lucky.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Zonker, 22 Apr 2015 @ 2:31pm

        Re: Re:

        To me, that the cop sought to perform a K9 search at all for a routine traffic stop with no other probable cause indicates that the cop was using parallel construction to cover up the unconstitutional mass surveillance that lead to this suspect being singled out for the search.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Padpaw (profile), 22 Apr 2015 @ 1:16pm

      Re:

      depending on the state not being white can get a person pulled over on grounds of suspicion.

      The police are not infallible and should never be treated as such. Otherwise that's setting a very dangerous precedent that is already getting innocent unarmed and unresisting people killed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      James Burkhardt (profile), 22 Apr 2015 @ 1:19pm

      Re:

      If you search and entire neighborhood home and computer and car im sure you'll turn stuff up. But that doesn't mean you had reasonable, articulatable, objectective reasons for searching that neighborhood. The ends does not justify the means.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2015 @ 3:06pm

      Re:

      But if they had found nothing, there would have been no court case because there would have been no evidence to throw out.

      Even if they could, how many people would bother to bring a lawsuit because an officer called a drug dog that found nothing? If they were delayed half an hour, and they get paid $50 per hour, are they going to file suit for $25?

      And "reasonable suspicion" is not enough to perform a search. You need "probable cause" to do that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2015 @ 4:06pm

      Re:

      > But when the officer specifically was looking for drugs, and he ended up finding drugs, to me that suggests that he had a reasonable suspicion that was grounded in something objective...

      ... like the contents of the officer's Plantable Evidence Bag.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 7:47am

      Re:

      "to me that suggests that he had a reasonable suspicion that was grounded in something objective..."

      try again

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Mark Loper, 30 Dec 2015 @ 4:08pm

      Re:

      Reasonable suspension? Are you serious? Based on what on what? If he had a reasonable suspension, why didn't he get a warrant?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Andy Koch, 22 Apr 2015 @ 1:09pm

    The opinion is a bit more nuanced. It states:

    "Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been— completed."

    "Reasonably should have been" will be something likely worked out in court on a case by case basis, but it certainly gives those exposed to fishing expedition cops something to lean on. If the police wait for someone else to arrive, stall in handing over your information, or otherwise hold up the process for no reason they will be setting themselves up for failure in the court room. Hopefully that will lead to less fishing in the future.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Padpaw (profile), 22 Apr 2015 @ 1:11pm

    This would require that the police gave a dam about the laws in the first place. Since this is ample proof they don't, it is a bit pointless to expect them to start following the laws they were already supposed to before this ruling happened.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    jilocasin (profile), 22 Apr 2015 @ 1:14pm

    Next case... unlawfully 'extending stop'

    That's good to hear that the Supreme Court ruled that way (if you get a chance you should listen to the oral arguments).

    This of course leads to the _next_ case. Unlawfully _extending_ a stop.

    Drivers need to _not_consent_ to any requests to search _anything_. This needs to be followed by the newest mantra;
    "Am I free to go?"

    Possible future case;

    Carlos stopped for not having his headlights on during the day (it's not _actually_ an infraction, but that's O.K. right?).

    Officer Bob knows Carlos brings the cash from his family's fleet of lunch vans to the bank every Thursday. Office Bob just _knows_ that it's really _drug_money_ that's being laundered by Carlos. Unfortunately for Officer Bob, Rusty, the department's trusty drug sniffing dog (the one that can be counted upon 'alert' whenever it's handler taps his left foot) has decided to chase after a hot dog wielding poodle upon arrival.

    Officer Bob commences to; drop his ticket pad, break his pencil, stop to retie his shoes, complain that his vehicle's computer has lost connection, squint at Carlos' license and clean his glasses (never mind that they are non-prescription sunglasses) repeatedly. All the while frantically calling into his walkie talkie for updates on the status of good 'ol Rusty.

    Carlos repeatedly, and politely, asks if he's free to go.

    Office Bob tells Carlos that he'll be free to go as soon as he completes giving Carlos a warning about his head lights. IF Carlos would consent to a simple little search of his vehicle, no? Hmm wouldn't you know it, his pencil has run out of ink.

    An hour later, Rusty and his handler shows up and would you believe he 'alerts' to Carlos' car.

    After Officer Bob finishes moving the cash box from Carlos' trunk to _his_ trunk (obviously drug related as proven by Rusty 'alerting' to the box {on command}) Officer Bob writes Carlos out a warning for not having his headlights on during the day. He is now ...free to go.

    Carlos sues the town for their illegal seizure of his family businesses money. His lawyer sites "Rodriguez v. US".

    The district attorney argues that it's all legal and above board as the _reason_for_the_stop_ namely giving Carlos a warning, wasn't completed before the drug sniffing dog alerted, so it all completely legal.

    Que up the next phase of this saga......

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 7:23am

      Re: Next case... unlawfully 'extending stop'

      Unfortunately for Officer Bob, Rusty, the department's trusty drug sniffing dog (the one that can be counted upon [to] 'alert' whenever [its] handler taps his left foot) ...

      I'm curious as to whether this phenomenon has ever shown up in court. It sounds a lot like urban legend, but there must be something in it ("where there's smoke, ..."). Have any police dog handlers been busted for training their dogs to alert on demand?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 9:31am

        Re: Re: Next case... unlawfully 'extending stop'

        "Have any police dog handlers been busted for training their dogs to alert on demand?"

        "Busted"? By whom? What world do you live in?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          tqk (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 9:57am

          Re: Re: Re: Next case... unlawfully 'extending stop'

          Have any police dog handlers been busted for training their dogs to alert on demand?

          "Busted"? By whom? What world do you live in?

          I was kind of hoping that the courts and judges might have stumbled over the stinky and thought to question whether shenanigans might be taking place. In theory, that's their job.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jeffrey Deal (profile), 22 Apr 2015 @ 1:22pm

    Seek consent while you still have the driver’s license in hand. Smell the car for that “pungent” odor, peer knowingly for that furtive gesture, or stare carefully for those watery and lethargic eyes, before you hand over the papers.

    Does this read like erotica to anyone else?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    The One Free Man, 22 Apr 2015 @ 1:45pm

    Consent is the ultimate Fourth Amendment waiver

    Perhaps the ultimate loophole is this one: "consent is the ultimate Fourth Amendment waiver."

    I, for one, think that a citizen can't meaningfully consent to a search by a cop any more than a 14 year old girl can meaningfully consent to sex with a 40 year old man. Time to close that loophole and require probable cause for all police searches and seizures, period, no exceptions, not even if a citizen "consents".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 22 Apr 2015 @ 2:10pm

      Re: Consent is the ultimate Fourth Amendment waiver

      I'm not a child, and I think that I should be able to consent to things like searches if I choose to. For example, if I suspect that someone may be inside my house, I might wish to consent to have cops come in and make sure nobody's hiding in a closet.

      But right now, it's incredibly easy to "consent" to a search without realizing that you've consented to anything. That should never be able to happen. So I would be happy with tightening the rules a lot around this -- perhaps have a standard "consent to search" form that has to be signed for it to count. That way, cops would have a harder time pulling off their trickery.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2015 @ 3:58pm

        Re: Re: Consent is the ultimate Fourth Amendment waiver

        Because being intimidated or even 'just' bamboozled into signing such a form by an authority figure during a stressful situation is totally impossible and would NOT make it so much harder in every conceivable way for the citizen to show that the search was unconstitutional.

        Wow! You really thought this through! You're smart!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Gwiz (profile), 22 Apr 2015 @ 6:40pm

          Re: Re: Re: Consent is the ultimate Fourth Amendment waiver

          Because being intimidated or even 'just' bamboozled into signing such a form by an authority figure during a stressful situation is totally impossible and would NOT make it so much harder in every conceivable way for the citizen to show that the search was unconstitutional.


          Actually, I don't think it would.

          Duress is an established common law defense in contract law that would cause the form (contract) to be voided which would make it a search without consent and therefore unconstitutional.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            sigalrm (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 9:28am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Consent is the ultimate Fourth Amendment waiver

            "Actually, I don't think it would.

            Duress is an established common law defense in contract law that would cause the form (contract) to be voided which would make it a search without consent and therefore unconstitutional."

            And all you need to do to demonstrate it is to be sufficiently wealthy to pay the lawyers fees, and sufficiently patient to wait for months or years while it plays out in court.

            Of course, most people in this type of situation aren't sufficiently wealthy to make that happen....

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Gwiz (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 9:56am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consent is the ultimate Fourth Amendment waiver

              Of course, most people in this type of situation aren't sufficiently wealthy to make that happen....

              Perhaps. But this type of situation is what groups like the ALCU live to fight for. And once precedent was set with a case like that, the police would be forced to revise their policies going forward.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 10:36am

          Re: Re: Re: Consent is the ultimate Fourth Amendment waiver

          It wouldn't eliminate the problem, but it would make it harder to pull off. Or, more correctly, would make it easier to challenge in court. Right now, it's just the cop's word that consent was given.

          More importantly, though, is that it would make is explicit to the person signing that that are giving consent (whether or not that consent was coerced). That would fix the problem that I was talking about: that you can give consent for a search without knowing that you gave consent for a search.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        The One Free Man, 22 Apr 2015 @ 4:32pm

        Re: Re: Consent is the ultimate Fourth Amendment waiver

        That's different. The perp in your example has no expectation of privacy hiding in someone else's closet, so there's no Fourth Amendment issue. The only effect of this change in your scenario would be that the cop couldn't use anything else found in that closet to go after you.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 22 Apr 2015 @ 10:13pm

          Re: Re: Re: Consent is the ultimate Fourth Amendment waiver

          It has nothing to do with the perp's expectation of privacy. In the hypothetical, I want the cops to search my own house, where I have a very strong expectation of privacy. Therefore, I want to be able to give them the consent to search.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2015 @ 4:43pm

        Re: Re: Consent is the ultimate Fourth Amendment waiver

        "I might wish to consent to have cops come in and make sure nobody's hiding in a closet."

        And while they are looking for that "monster" in your closet, they'll be looking at what you have laying out on the coffee table, on your bookshelves, etc.

        The police see everyone as a criminal, and they always look to find the law YOU broke. It is no longer "To Protect and Serve", but "Arrest and Jail".

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 22 Apr 2015 @ 10:28pm

          Re: Re: Re: Consent is the ultimate Fourth Amendment waiver

          Yes, it's true that once you've allowed someone inside, they can see everything there. If that someone is a cop, then they can bust you for whatever illegal thing they see. If I were concerned with that, it would probably factor into whether or not I gave consent.

          But I don't think the cops are generally quite as predatory as you paint here. If you're a member of a subgroup that is unpopular with cops then things are a bit different, but cops really are generally decent people who are trying to do a hard job. They aren't really out to get you.

          However, it's also true that cops have a strong tendency to look at random people as just crooks that haven't been caught yet. When you deal with a certain kind of person day in and day out, you begin to think everyone is like that. And there are bad cops. In the end, cops are people with all that implies: there are angels and devils, but most are imperfectly decent.

          The real problem is that cops need to be more decent than the rest of us. We give them tremendous power and authority, and they need to be held to a higher standard because of that.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2015 @ 10:48pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Consent is the ultimate Fourth Amendment waiver

            ... cops really are generally decent people...
            Bullshit.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              John Fenderson (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 6:44am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consent is the ultimate Fourth Amendment waiver

              Well, it depends on your opinion of people generally. The point I was trying to make is that cops are just people, no different than the rest of us. If you think that people are generally decent, the same applies to cops too. If you don't, the same applies to cops too.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              tqk (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 7:01am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consent is the ultimate Fourth Amendment waiver

              ... cops really are generally decent people...

              Bullshit.

              No, he is correct. However, it's apparently heavily dependent upon where you are and what you look like. I've never had anything but great interactions with cops all my life. They've always been protect and serve exemplars to me. However, I'm a male caucasian, and we don't have whole PDs around here intent on padding the office budget with whatever they can confiscate from innocent citizens.

              There's lots of stories here that will chill you to the bone with respect to their interactions with minorities, however. Natives, blacks, and asians have essentially been outright murdered, and shady characters (prostitutes, drug dealers, ...) can wait for years while the bodies pile up before anything is done about it. Most caucasians never see that side of it.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                John Fenderson (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 8:11am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consent is the ultimate Fourth Amendment waiver

                "Most caucasians never see that side of it."

                Yes, and that's why I mentioned the but about being in a subgroup cops hate. As near as I can tell, there are regional variations about who the hated subgroups are. It's not always race. Sometimes, it's where you live or happen to be, or your socioeconomic status, etc.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Padpaw (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 12:56am

          Re: Re: Re: Consent is the ultimate Fourth Amendment waiver

          they do have quotas tied into the percentage of getting a raise

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2015 @ 2:14pm

    I would like to see the officer have to state (for the in-car camera) his probable cause for making the stop prior to the actual stop. This should be backed up by dash-cam vidio of the actual infraction. Perhaps this will put an end to the all time favorite "weaving within your lane"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DB (profile), 22 Apr 2015 @ 2:14pm

    I agree that truly coerced consent is rarely present in a traffic stop.

    If the police officer starts to hand back my license, but then withdraws it and asks to search my car, is my consent voluntary? What if a warning turns into a ticket when I refuse?

    I'm not saying that consent is never present in police interactions. "A convict just escaped. May we search your shed?" But a traffic stop is rarely that type of situation. Even a positive interaction, "Just wanted to let you know your taillight is out.." quickly turns negative when followed by "may we search your car?"

    As for claiming it's not a fishing expedition because drugs were eventually found, that doesn't necessarily follow. There are likely dozens of coerced searches that don't turn up anything for every one that does. There isn't motivation, or even standing, to complain about those.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2015 @ 5:34pm

      Re:

      If the police officer starts to hand back my license, but then withdraws it...
      You are being detained. No reasonable person would feel free to leave and abandon their identification.

      There's fairly good precedent on that at the lower court level. Although, I am aware of at least one crazy lower court who saw things the other way—as a result, there's some appellate precedent on that point, too.

      ... and asks to search my car, is my consent voluntary?
      Being detained is just one factor that gets mixed into the totality of the circumstances. Mere acquiescence to authority is not consent.

      It is the state's burden to show that you voluntarily consented.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2015 @ 8:49pm

        Re: Re:

        You are being detained.

        Btw, and fwiw, here's an excerpt from a recent decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals, State v Anderson (April 21, 2015)
         . . . In determining whether a stop has de-escalated into a first-tier encounter, such that a reasonable person would have felt free to leave, “three important factors have been given particular scrutiny: (a) whether the driver’s documents have been returned to him; (b) whether the officer informed the driver that he was free to leave; and (c) whether the driver appreciated that the traffic stop had reached an endpoint.”. . . .
        (Emphasis added.)

        Not necessarily the best case to cite on this point (especially outside of Georgia!), but recent and handy.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 8:16am

      Re:

      "If the police officer starts to hand back my license, but then withdraws it and asks to search my car, is my consent voluntary?"

      I think so, yes. You can still say no.

      "What if a warning turns into a ticket when I refuse?"

      Well, that would be petty on the part of the cop, but I don't think it really changes much. A warning is a bit like a favor from a cop: you actually did something wrong, and the cop is giving you a pass on it. If refusing a search means that the cop is no longer willing to do you a favor, that strikes me as a dick move but not really very punitive.

      If the cop was threatening to write a ticket for (or charge you with) something you didn't do, however, that changes everything.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 9:44am

        Re: Re:

        ... is my consent voluntary?
        I think so, yes.
        As a judge, you have just committed reversible error.

        The original poster has not provided enough information to reach the conclusion that his consent was voluntary in these circumstances. It is the state's burden to show that the consent exception applies. When you lack details, the state has not met its burden.

        Don't feel too bad, a surprising number of judges have screwed this one up at suppression hearings. With a small amount of luck, it gets fixed on appeal.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2015 @ 2:22pm

    will the issue now not be how long is the officer/s allowed to keep a person detained or stopped before making the decision to issue a ticket? if the officer can fanny around while waiting for further officers to arrive with/without dogs, for example, and get a search carried out anyway, the person concerned is still being held, isn't he/she because the writing of the ticket hasn't happened and probably wont until the very last minute? the Court should have been more specific in the ruling but as is usual, they do just enough to make life a little bit more uncertain for both sides of the fence. not good, really!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DB (profile), 22 Apr 2015 @ 2:30pm

    My post above s/coerced/uncoerced/

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2015 @ 2:36pm

    "Officers just need to explore their options before issuing a citation."

    No, the opinion expressly disclaims this:
    "An officer, in other words, may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop. But contrary to JUSTICE ALITO’s suggestion, post, at 4, n. 2, he may not do so in a way that prolongs the stop, absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual." (p. 6)
    "The critical question, then, is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, as JUSTICE ALITO supposes, post at 2–4, but whether conducting the sniff 'prolongs', i.e., adds time to 'the stop', supra at 6." (p. 8)

    Now, as a practical matter, it may be that the cop will just wait for backup while pretending to still be checking your information. That's still illegal, but he's unlikely to get caught.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    IronM@sk, 22 Apr 2015 @ 5:54pm

    Rather *than*

    A mistake you wouldn't expect to be made here.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 12:21am

    Except that now they can lawfully 'extend' the stop simply by shooting you in the back because of 'illegal posession of thick lips and non-white skin'

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 12:24am

    We see NYPD and LAPD etc murdering people for basically a cheap thrill everyday but I'd live to know on a daily basis how many police murder victims find their way into the bay or landfill.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Padpaw (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 12:58am

      Re:

      I would bet more than any local mob. as the dirty cops know most people see them as infalliable so they can get away with a lot more stuff in the open

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 1:07am

    I imagine a candidate could go far campaigning for the dissolution of police unions and justice system reform, well till the blackmail

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 3:45am

    Worse that useless

    "Justice Sotomayor was completely unimpressed by this logic during oral arguments, pointing out that continued deference to law enforcement would turn the Fourth Amendment into a "useless piece of paper."


    It's worse than useless, it's dangerous. How long are we going to allow some crappy old piece of paper to stand in the way of protecting our nation?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 23 Apr 2015 @ 6:38am

    This ruling should turn "Am I free to go?" into a drivers' mantra.


    Which will probably be met with the cop's mantra of "No, you are not." Sure, it's not legal, but how many average people are going to know that? Especially if they're like my friend who believes that nobody should ever question the orders of a cop.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.