Police may not hold you after a traffic stop to allow time for a "drug dog" to show up without "reasonable suspicion" of the presence of drugs

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Supreme Court votes to limit the use of Drug Sniffing Dogs in traffic stops:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/21/scotus-drug-sniffing-dogs_n_7109146.html

From the article:

WASHINGTON, April 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday placed a new limit on when police can use drug-sniffing dogs, ruling the dogs cannot be employed after a routine traffic stop has been completed if there is no reasonable suspicion about the presence of drugs in the vehicle.

The court ruled 6-3 in favor of a driver, Dennys Rodriguez, who was stopped in Nebraska and found to be transporting a large bag of methamphetamine following a dog sniff.

In an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court held that a traffic stop lengthened purely to conduct a dog sniff without reasonable suspicion would violate the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Of course Reasonable Suspicion is a really low standard for officers to establish the need for a drug dog. Nevertheless it is nice to see the court pushing back against unreasonable searches and seizures.

[Bronn Stone]

I thought this article had more detail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/us/supreme-court-limits-drug-sniffing-dog-use-in-traffic-stops.html

I am more pleased by the breadth of the ruling. This has all sorts of application beyond drug sniffing dogs.

A police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitutions shield against unreasonable seizures, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority. The vote was 6 to 3.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying the majority had drawn artificial and unworkable distinctions. He was joined by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and, for the most part, by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

If a driver is stopped by a particularly efficient officer, Justice Thomas wrote, then he will be entitled to be released from the traffic stop after a shorter period of time than a driver stopped by a less efficient officer. Similarly, if a driver is stopped by an officer with access to technology that can shorten a records check, then he will be entitled to be released from the stop after a shorter period of time than an individual stopped by an officer without access to such technology.

Ummm. Yes? I don't see how unworkable that is. The police run checks and when the checks come back without warrants, they cite or do not cite, based on the events and then the driver goes on his or her way. Without reasonable suspicion, they can't force the individual to wait for a Geiger Counter or a bomb-sniffing dog or a gropey TSA agent. Seems quite workable to me.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Bronn,

My fear is that police will start "smelling" pot more often or just not ask as they take a while to write the ticket and call in the drug dog.

[Bronn Stone]

Lying police officers are hard to pin down. That doesn't mean there should not be guidelines.

I just wish there were more consequences to getting caught. Perjury by a police officer should be a serious felony, much more serious than perjury by an ordinary citizen.

[Fez]

Nevertheless it is nice to see the court pushing back against unreasonable searches and seizures.

I think the Court has been doing this for a while now. For all his other faults, Scalia is strong proponent of fourth amendment protections and usually provides a liberal majority on such cases (except for the times that Breyer also switches sides); although in this case looks like the liberals got him and Roberts. Just a year or two ago there was that case where the Court said officers couldn't bring drug dogs to front doors/porches of houses without a search warrant.

[Lummel]

This drug dog fellow sounds like a louche character

[TrackerNeil]

Supreme Court votes to limit the use of Drug Sniffing Dogs in traffic stops:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/21/scotus-drug-sniffing-dogs_n_7109146.html

From the article:

Of course Reasonable Suspicion is a really low standard for officers to establish the need for a drug dog. Nevertheless it is nice to see the court pushing back against unreasonable searches and seizures.

It is, particularly since this same court recently ruled that ignorance of the law is no excuse for anyone except police officers.