SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST PROLONGED TRAFFIC STOPS FOR DRUG SNIFFING DOGS

(04/23/2015)

The United States Supreme Court has made a significant ruling that will affect the public's rights when police make a traffic stop. Justices ruled that police officers can not drag out traffic stops so that drug sniffing dogs can be brought in to check on cars. The case, Rodriguez vs. The United States, stems from a Nebraska meth bust that happened when an officer had a dog sniff the driver's car after he was given a warning for erratic driving. The majority for the Supreme Court believes the stop should have ended with the warning. "Essentially this case is a victory for the constitution and it's a victory for the rights of Americans everywhere. The fourth amendment is there because it protects all of us from unreasonable searches and seizures," says Charleston attorney Jesse Forbes. The ruling does not mean Rodriguez is off the hook. Justices sent the case back to a lower court to determine if the officer had reasonable suspicion to justify bringing in the dog. "This isn't going to across the board stop things and this isn't a ruling or victory for drug dealers, what this is is for basic citizens to say they've got to have a right reason to search your vehicle," says Forbes. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that all this will do is change the order in which officers complete their tasks during a traffic stop. He believes issuing a warning or a ticket will now be the last step.

Hur Herald ®from Sunny Cal The information on these pages, to the extent the law allows, remains the exclusive property of Bob Weaver and Dianne Weaver The Hur Herald. All information may be freely used but must not be sold or used in any type of commercial endeavor, or used on any web site without the express permission of the owners ©Bob and Dianne Weaver, The Hur Herald, 1999, 2000, 2001