The Supremes surprised me with this one.

[The Sandman]

This just came down today. In short, Police may not extend a traffic stop to wait for a K9 sniff any longer than it takes to complete said traffic stop.

Rodriguez v. U.S., 13-9972.

Justices: Police can't extend traffic stop awaiting drug dog | The State The State

Not starting anything about dogs good or bad, just looking to share the news.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Officer Chompy down!

Not starting anything about dogs good or bad

That's my gig.

 

[The Sandman]

I know Kirk, hate to step on any ones toes!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

LOL, by all means.

The Canine God bleeds, huzzah!

 

[HoughMade]

So the answer to the age-old question "am I being detained".

...in this case, is "yes".

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I thought that's the existing rule. What changed?
Note:
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

 

[SSGSAD]

So, BBI, how long does it take you, to give me a ticket?????

The shortest time I have been stopped, and recieved a ticket, is 15-20 minutes .....

I saw the Police, or Deptuy, on I 74, in Shelby Co., call in the dogs, several times when I worked at the Casino..

Took almost an hour all together .....

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, that's actually been the rule in Indiana for awhile.

Recent case with an overview of the caselaw:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11131302cjb.pdf

 

[Kirk Freeman]

thought that's the existing rule. What changed?

This is federal, not state, Fourth Amendment challenge.

Now the Fourth Amendment matches up with Article I, §11.

 

[T.Lex]

This is federal, not state, Fourth Amendment challenge.

Now the Fourth Amendment matches up with Article I, §11.

As it ever should. (I like our version WAY more betterer.)

 

[SEIndSAM]

But what is the definition of a "Normal Time For Traffic Stop"???

I haven't been pulled over often, but I have had a stop that lasted less than 5 minutes, and another stop in Ohio that lasted 20 minutes?
(Ohio State Trooper said that their computer was having trouble connecting with the Indiana system to verify my DL)

 

[HoughMade]

Sounds like something that you may need a trial to resolve.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So, BBI, how long does it take you, to give me a ticket?????

The shortest time I have been stopped, and recieved a ticket, is 15-20 minutes .....

I saw the Police, or Deptuy, on I 74, in Shelby Co., call in the dogs, several times when I worked at the Casino..

Took almost an hour all together .....

That depends. If I think something criminal may be afoot, digging a little deeper (which takes more time) falls under the realm of a, routine traffic stop.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If I think something criminal may be afoot

Or, a-pawed.

 

[T.Lex]

A pied?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

There is no time for pie for tea. There is endzone dancing to do!

 

[rambone]

Well, well. Check out which justices were against limiting government power.

 

[ModernGunner]

Well, that "If I think something criminal may be afoot" just won't cut it, going forward. What the LEO 'thinks' is inconsequential and detaining people for additional time because of it will likely cost some LEO's their badge for trying to push it.

"Digging a little deeper" MAY (or now, may not) fall 'under the realm of a routine traffic stop', but that LEO conducting the stop best have hard, articulable, demonstrable, irrefutable facts on which to justify that 'digging a little deeper'.

Nor can the LEO use time to 'wait and see' if the person's starts to 'act differently', physically or emotionally. And with that, the tried-and-true 'stall tactic' of the LEO 'taking their t-i-m-e' looking up a statute, writing a ticket, and so forth just got floored.

That's a good thing. On most traffic stops, LEO's waste too much time, anyway. IF they're going to write the ticket, then write the ticket and be done with it.

 

[The Sandman]

I wasn't sure what the rule was before. I guess I was under the assumption they could hold you for a "reasonable amount of time" to wait for the doggie. And yes, I'm aware of what happens when one assumes.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well, that "If I think something criminal may be afoot" just won't cut it, going forward. What the LEO 'thinks' is inconsequential and detaining people for additional time because of it will likely cost some LEO's their badge for trying to push it.

"Digging a little deeper" MAY (or now, may not) fall 'under the realm of a routine traffic stop', but that LEO conducting the stop best have hard, articulable, demonstrable, irrefutable facts on which to justify that 'digging a little deeper'.

Nor can the LEO use time to 'wait and see' if the person's starts to 'act differently', physically or emotionally. And with that, the tried-and-true 'stall tactic' of the LEO 'taking their t-i-m-e' looking up a statute, writing a ticket, and so forth just got floored.

That's a good thing. On most traffic stops, LEO's waste too much time, anyway. IF they're going to write the ticket, then write the ticket and be done with it.

Yeah, it does cut it. I don't run everybody to IDACS/NCIC, and no officer does. However, if your car has 20 air fresheners handing from the rear view mirror, has on a Grateful Dead t-shirt, and multiple cell phones in view (none of which are illegal), I will take the extra time to run that person's history, while the k9 is enroute; whereas I would not with a soccer mom, in sweats picking up her kids from the field.