Rodriguez v. U.S. - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Rodriguez v. U.S.

Can police extend a traffic stop for a dog sniff?

Jennifer Hammack

Brittain

huntSlide2

PrecendentCity of Indianapolis v. Edmond (1998)

Road Blocks for drug searches unconstitutional

Illinois v.

Caballes

(2004)

Canine Sniff during a legal traffic stop does not require reasonable suspicion. Slide3

Rodriguez

Holding: Absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures

.

Judgment

: Vacated and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on April 21, 2015. Justice Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Alito joined and in which Justice Kennedy joined as to all but Part III

MAJORITY: GINSBURG, SCALIA, ROBERTS, SOTOMAYOR, BREYER, KAGAN

DISSENT: KENNEDY, THOMAS, ALITOSlide4

Procedural History

1

) The Magistrate Judge concluded that prolonging the stop by “seven to eight minutes” for the dog sniff was only a de

minimis

intrusion on Rodriguez’s Fourth Amendment rights and was for that reason permissible.

2) The District Court then denied the motion to suppress.

3) The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Noting that delay was an acceptable “de

minimis

intrusion

and declining to reach the question whether

Struble

had reasonable suspicion to continue Rodriguez’s detention after issuing the written warning.Slide5

In a nutshell…Officer’s stop ruled unconstitutional in 6-3 vote.

Extension after completion of stop violates 4th Amendment

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority:

“[Dog sniffs] become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond reasonable time to complete the mission of issuing a ticket”.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the dissent:

“…bringing the overall duration of the stop to 29 minutes. Because the stop was reasonably executed, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred”.Slide6

Majority

“

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.”Slide7

Facts

One

midnight in Nebraska, “K-9” Officer Morgan

Struble

was driving alone with his

K9 unit when

he saw Rodriguez’s car drift over the shoulder line and then jerk back onto the road.

Struble

stopped the car, asked for an explanation (“pothole”), and took Rodriguez’s license, registration, and proof of insurance to run a records check back in his patrol car. He asked Rodriguez to accompany him, but when Rodriguez asked if he had to and

Struble

said no, Rodriguez “decided to wait in his own vehicle.”

Struble

returned to Rodriguez’s car, began to question a passenger, and then went back to his patrol car to run a records check on the passenger. He also radioed for a back-up officer

(officer safety). With

the second records check still negative,

Struble

went back to Rodriguez’s car again, finished writing a warning ticket, and asked permission to walk his dog around the car. When Rodriguez

said no,

Struble

ordered

him from the car

and searched with k9. K9 reported and officers found methamphetamine

.Slide8

Timeline of the Stop12:06 AM Car pulled over

12:27 AM Warning issued and explained

12:33 AM Sherriff arrived with K9

12:34 AM Dog Alerts

Entire stop was 29 minutes; average traffic stop is about 30 minutesSlide9

The Real “Win”

In In Rodriguez, the majority

described a dog sniff as “a measure aimed at detecting evidence

.” It sounds like SCOTUS is finally willing to admit dog sniffs are searches. Justice

Thomas

in

his dissent said a

“dog sniff … is directed at uncovering” contraband.

And

recall that in

Jardines

, Justice Scalia noted that a dog sniff, even on a porch that is visible and generally accessible to the public, can be a search because it is directed at “obtaining information.”Slide10

Thomas’ dissent

“

The only question here is whether an officer executed a stop in a reasonable manner when he waited to conduct a dog sniff until after he had given the driver a written warning and a backup unit had arrived, bringing the overall duration of the stop to 29 minutes. Because the stop was reasonably executed, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred.”Slide11

Policy Implications of RodriguezWith Illinois v.

Caballes

, ruling in US v. Rodriguez becomes clouded.

Fourth Amendment’s unreasonable seizure is now violated, following the completion of traffic stop.

2 possible directions for police practices.

Dog sniffs will become lessened significantly

Dog sniffs will remain relatively unchangedSlide12

Policy Implications according to Thomas

“

Under

[the majority’s]reasoning

, a traffic stop made by a rookie could be executed in a reasonable manner, whereas the same traffic stop made by a knowledgeable, veteran officer in precisely the same circumstances might not, if in fact his knowledge and experience made him capable of completing the stop faster. We have long rejected interpretations of the Fourth Amendment that would produce such haphazard results, and I see no reason to depart

from our

consistent practice today.”Slide13

Rodriguez: Good or Bad Precedent?What do you think the implications of this decision will be??Slide14

Works CitedCity of Indianapolis v. Edmond, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-1030 (last visited Nov 2, 2015).

Rodriguez v. United States, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/13-9972 (last visited Nov 2, 2015).

Rodriguez v. United States, Supremecourt.gov, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf (last visited Nov 2, 2015).