Police can't extend traffic stop awaiting drug dog

[vostok]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Tuesday that police may not extend an ordinary traffic stop to
seek evidence of crimes unrelated to the offense that prompted officers to pull a vehicle over.

The justices voted 6-3 in favor of a driver who was found to have methamphetamine in his car.
Dennys Rodriguez was issued a warning for driving on the shoulder of a Nebraska highway and then made
to wait less than 10 minutes for officers to walk a drug-sniffing dog around the car.
The dog alerted and a search of the vehicle turned up the drugs.

But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her majority opinion that prolonging the traffic stop
beyond the time needed to deal with the initial offense was improper, even if only for a few minutes.

Police may typically inspect a driver's license, ask for the registration and proof of insurance and check
for outstanding warrants because they all are aimed at ensuring that vehicles are operated safely,
Ginsburg said. "A dog sniff, unlike those stock inquiries, lacks the same tie to roadway safety," she said.

Ginsburg also swatted away arguments that the total duration of the stop was reasonable.
The precise amount of time involved is unimportant, she said.
"A traffic stop becomes unlawful if prolonged beyond the time in fact needed to complete all traffic-based inquiries,"
Ginsburg said. Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Rodriguez won at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, but he may not be free of legal trouble.
It is possible that the police had a reasonable basis, independent of the traffic stop,
to suspect that Rodriguez was engaged in drug dealing, Ginsburg said.
Lower courts now will consider that issue.

Alito called Tuesday's decision "unnecessary, impractical and arbitrary"
because the officer did have reasonable suspicion that the car contained drugs.

The case is Rodriguez v. U.S., 13-9972.

here: http://news.yahoo.com/justices-police-cant-extend-traffic-stop-awaiting-drug-142805661.html

 

[DickAnubis]

Very interesting post, Vostok.
This decision is very important.
While Mr. Rodriguez may or may not be a drug dealer is really of no consequence to the ruling and Justice Ginsberg made a clear distinction.
This protects us all from illegal search.
There will be many arguements because meth was involved, but again that isn't the issue.

Judicial bait and switch is, I stop you for one reason and arrest you for an unrelated reason that was not evident.

Thanks for posting this.
I hope the community at large has a gander and also divines the importance of the actual issue, which I think most on these boards will.

DA

 

[Beta Test Team]

Great, thanks for posting!

 

[unregistered190]

Thanks for sharing

 

[vostok]

I do think there is more to come ...
much more

 

[Jellyfish]

Like marijuana breath-alyzers.

 

[mingmen]

good

 

[Tudo]

Let the appeals begin!

 

[stoned-trout]

they will still do it anyhow... I have had it happen to me a few times in my life....yeehaw

 

[DickAnubis]

To have a pot breath-alyzer it would weed would have to be as legal as booze.
I wonder how it would work, what would be the acceptable limit and how would it be measured?
Interesting questions, any potential answers?

And how would a sobriety test work.
I, myself am quite off balance most of the time. When I'm high I tend to be more in allignment with gravity and appear almost gymnastic.
The touch the nose, walk a straight line test might seem a fun challenge to a stoner.
We might even become adept at it.

A lot of weirdness in the future.
But for now, this SC decision is a sound one we can all use should the need arise.

DA

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

Nassau County Undersheriff George Lueders said the problem with the Nebraska arrest was the officer had completed his stop before he took his dog around the car.

“It’s a different sequence of events that has to be taught now,” Lueders said. “In other words, you hold off on writing the citation until the dog has completed the circle around the car.”

He said Nassau County has four K-9 units, one for each squad for each shift, and the deputies use the dogs only if it won’t extend the time of the traffic stop.

“If you call a dog to come to you and it’s going to take the dog 30 minutes to come there, then that’s an excessive amount of time,” Lueders said. “Whatever you find will be thrown out if you continue it.

“But depending on where you’re at, whatever the court rules is a reasonable amount of time to complete the traffic stop, if it’s within that time period and the dog can get there, then whatever the dog hits on can still be admitted in court.”

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/...-drug-sniffing-dogs-could-change-traffic-stop

 

[xMetatronx]

I read that a company is working on a roadside saliva test for drugs.

 

[Betterhaff]

Nassau County Undersheriff George Lueders said the problem with the Nebraska arrest was the officer had completed his stop before he took his dog around the car.

“It’s a different sequence of events that has to be taught now,” Lueders said. “In other words, you hold off on writing the citation until the dog has completed the circle around the car.”

He said Nassau County has four K-9 units, one for each squad for each shift, and the deputies use the dogs only if it won’t extend the time of the traffic stop.

“If you call a dog to come to you and it’s going to take the dog 30 minutes to come there, then that’s an excessive amount of time,” Lueders said. “Whatever you find will be thrown out if you continue it.

“But depending on where you’re at, whatever the court rules is a reasonable amount of time to complete the traffic stop, if it’s within that time period and the dog can get there, then whatever the dog hits on can still be admitted in court.”

Just read this...

Jeff Furbee, the legal adviser for the Columbus Division of Police, said city officers already adhere to the legal constraints outlined in the ruling.

“This decision really doesn’t change anything for CPD because we have been teaching and acting consistent with what the Supreme Court held in this case,” he said.<?xml:namespace prefix = "o" ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>

Since a related court decision in 2005, Furbee said, Columbus police have been instructed that if they do not have reasonable suspicion that a drug offense exists during a traffic stop, a dog can be run around the vehicle only for the time it takes to conduct and complete the stop.

<o>Does this just mean that the stop will take longer to complete meaning the officer will say he had trouble running a plate or checking for warrants?</o>
<o></o>
<o></o><o>http://workplace.dispatch.com/conte...-dog-case-should-have-little-effect-here.html
</SECTION></SECTION></ARTICLE></SECTION>



</SECTION></SECTION></ARTICLE></SECTION></o>

 

[DickAnubis]

Now that's an interesting twist on things, Crusader.
Always another way to tie a knot.

I wonder if the SC decision can now be used by savvy attorneys to derail these types of search.
In plain sight is one thing but using special equipment ( in this case a dog) adds a dimension that nay be questionable.
What if every police cruiser is equiped with an x-ray machine that the office turns on when eiting his car to approach a pulled over suspect?
Where can the line be drawn?

Ginsberg does indeed throw that back to the lower courts.

I still think the decision is a good one, but as always We, the people must fight for our rights at every turn.
Not unreasonable, freedom comes at a high price, which is why so many sacrifice it.

DA

 

[Beta Test Team]

Just read this...
<o>Does this just mean that the stop will take longer to complete meaning the officer will say he had trouble running a plate or checking for warrants?</o>
<o></o>
<o></o><o>http://workplace.dispatch.com/conte...-dog-case-should-have-little-effect-here.html
</o>

A cynical person would say yes, so put me in the "yes" category.

I think where people will have room to contest use of drug dogs for something like being puller over for speeding or broken tail light is when the officer that pulls the person over is not a K-9 unit. That is, if the K-9 unit needs to be called to the site there's more room to contest anything the dog finds in terms of being held by the police longer than it takes for simply running plates and drivers license (looking for warrants and whatnot).

However, if someone is pulled over for speeding and the cop claims he smells Cannabis I think the cop could likely hold the person until the K-9 unit arrives, because the reason he's holding the person isn't related to the initial reason for the traffic stop.

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

I couldn't find the quote to post here, but in his dissent, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that this decision was meaningless, because the police would simply change their procedures to draw out the traffic stop inquiry and gain enough time for the drug dog to arrive. Said he'd like to be the proverbial fly on the wall when police departments hold their next staff meetings to discuss this decision.

 

[Beta Test Team]

In plain sight is one thing but using special equipment ( in this case a dog) adds a dimension that nay be questionable.

What if every police cruiser is equiped with an x-ray machine that the office turns on when eiting his car to approach a pulled over suspect? Where can the line be drawn?

Interesting point, and I think (I'm not a lawyer) X-ray machines would constitute a "search" like court recently ruled about similar type of scanner (body heat) of homes without a warrant. In your example, I think without probable cause and the OK of the driver (in lue of a warrant) the cops wouldn't be allowed to use such tools (similar to the ruling about dogs).

 

[Beta Test Team]

I couldn't find the quote to post here, but in his dissent, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that this decision was meaningless, because the police would simply change their procedures to draw out the traffic stop inquiry and gain enough time for the drug dog to arrive. Said he'd like to be the proverbial fly on the wall when police departments hold their next staff meetings to discuss this decision.

Yet another great reason to video tape all police interactions from the second the driver is pulled over. I have long been thinking about buying 4 Go-Pro video cameras:

- To install one in the front of the car to record police talking to the driver (with the driver in the car), as well as to record police if they search the front of the car.

- To install another in the back inside of the car to record police if they search the back of the car and to record out the back window (recording the police car and what the police are doing in their car and outside their car, as well as if the driver is taken out of the car).

- To install another so it records what happens outside the car on the driver's side, if the driver is taken out of the car for example.

- To install another so it records what happens outside the car on the passenger's side, if the driver is taken out of the car for example.

I envision all of them being discretely installed so they're not obvious to the cop. And some type of single switch that turns all of them on at the same time, the second the driver pulls over.

Oh yea, I also would want a 5th Go-Pro recording the speedometer (speed of travel) at all times while the car is in operation. To prove the driver wasn't speeding if the cop pulls the driver over under false pretenses.

I really want do that.

 

[Beta Test Team]

^^^ If I had my car setup that way with all those video cameras I would feel safe using my Constitutionally protected right to give the cops the middle finger any time I feel like do so (which is any time I see an effing cop):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/flip-off-police_n_2403563.html

 

[Beta Test Team]

To have a pot breath-alyzer it would weed would have to be as legal as booze.

This is already the case in states with legal rec. Cannabis, including CO, WA, and OR. You can get a DUI if there's more than 5 ng THC in your blood in WA, for example.

http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-news/marijuana-duis-spike-following-legalization/29856134

Much like alcohol impairment, people suspected of driving high are asked to do a field sobriety test. Officers check for eye movements, balance and test the person's concept of time. If officers rule out alcohol and believe drugs are involved, they need blood for evidence. Unlike alcohol, where there's fast results from a Breathalyser, there's no on-site test for marijuana. Instead, officers have to get a search warrant signed by a judge to draw blood, which can take up to several hours.

"If they're impaired we have no issue with taking that driver off the roadway,” Leibrecht said.