Rodriguez v. United States

How long can a police officer detain a driver stopped for a traffic offense in order to conduct a dog sniff?  That is the question the Supreme Court will address in  Rodriguez v. United States (No. 13-9972).

Dennys Rodriguez was a motorist stopped in Omaha, Nebraska.  A K-9 police officer stopped Rodriguez at 12:06 a.m. after his vehicle veered slowly off the road and jerked back onto it.  The passenger would not make eye-contact (the officer was on the passenger side), and Rodriguez said he swerved to avoid a pothole.  After obtaining registration and license information, the officer asked Rodriguez to accompany him to the patrol car.  Rodriguez asked if he had to, the officer told him he did not, and Rodriguez stayed in his vehicle. The officer returned to the car and asked for the passenger’s, Pollman’s, identification.  A record check of both individuals revealed nothing.

At 12:26 or 12:27, the officer then issued a citation to Rodriguez and called for a second officer.  After issuing the citation, the officer asked Rodriguez if he could walk his dog around Rodriguez’s vehicle.  When Rodriguez refused, the officer ordered him out of the car and he stood in front of the patrol car.  After a deputy sheriff arrived at 12:33 a.m., the officer walked the dog around the car and the dog alerted to the presence of drugs, and a search revealed a large bag of methamphetamine.

The district court denied Rodriguez’s motion to suppress the evidence, and Rodriguez entered a conditional plea to possession with intent to distribute under 21 U.S. Code § 841.  On appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, Rodriguez argued that the officer unreasonably prolonged the traffic stop in the absence of reasonable suspicion to continue the initial stop (detention) in order to conduct the dog sniff of the vehicle.  The Eighth Circuit  rejected Rodriguez’s appeal holding that the time–after the traffic stop was completed–was not unreasonable.

In his brief to the Supreme Court, Rodriguez’s attorneys argued that “. . . well settled Fourth Amendment principles establish a bright-line rule: a traffic stop ends after an officer has completed the acts related to the traffic violation, and any detention beyond that point, no matter how brief, is unreasonable unless independently justified by individualized suspicion.”  Rodriguez noted that in a 2000 Supreme Court, City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, the Court held, “We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized and ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime.”

Rodriguez also argued that the Court had previously held that traffic stops have a specific end and that the post-stop detention (after Rodriguez had received the ticket) was not justified by any independent suspicion.  As a practical matter, Rodriguez further argued, a bright-line rule would be easily administered in the field.

The United States argued that the officer took “minimally intrusive” steps in the detention and dog-sniff.  The Government noted that, in a 2005 Supreme Court case, Illinois v. Caballes, the Court had allowed a dog-sniff “incident to” a traffic stop and that the reasonableness standard applies to the entire traffic stop–including the dog sniff–and not just the moment until the ticket was issued.

The Supreme Court will now have to decide if a bright-line rule applies and what is “reasonable” for a traffic stop duration and dog-sniff.