Supreme Court Rules Drug-Sniffing Dogs at Traffic Stops Are Illegal | South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys | Criminal Defense Lawyers - Strom Law Firm, L.L.C.
On Tuesday, April 21st, the Supreme Court ruled that a police may not bring in drug-sniffing dogs during a routine traffic stop, even if the dog finds a controlled substance and the suspect receives drug charges.
The ruling applied search and seizure law to routine traffic stops, resulting in a ruling in favor of a suspect's rights. If there is no reason to suspect a driver may have illegal substances in the vehicle, then there is no reason to bring in drug-sniffing dogs. The decision was 6-3, with both liberal and conservative judges agreeing overwhelmingly that stopping a motorist then switching up the criminal charges was a violation of basic constitutional rights.
"Police may not prolong detention of a car and driver beyond the time reasonably required to address the traffic violation," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking for the court. The Supreme Court's ruling applies the 4th Amendment to all police officers – local, state, and federal.
Ginsburg stated that police officers are able to stop a motorist for speeding or other traffic offenses, and check the driver and the driver's license. However, if there is no other reason to suspect DUI or drug involvement, then drug-sniffing dogs are not warranted.
The original case involved a Nebraska police officer who, just after midnight on March 27th, 2012, saw a car run off the shoulder and swerve back onto the road. The officer pulled the vehicle over. There were two men in the car – the driver was plaintiff Dennys Rodriguez – and the driver informed the officer that he had swerved to avoid a pot hole. The officer checked Rodriguez's license and registration, and inspected both him and his passenger for signs of intoxication. Satisfied, the officer decided to write up a warning, then suddenly changed his mind and asked if he could bring in drug-sniffing dogs. Rodriguez refused the search – which is within his rights – but the officer forced the two men to stay in their parked vehicle until the dogs arrived. The dog alerted officers to the presence of drugs, and police officers found methamphetamine. The two suspects were arrested on drug charges, but Rodriguez fought the charges based on 4th Amendment violations.
The original judge in the drug charges case, as well as the 8th Circuit Court, ruled that a stop of 7-10 minutes for drug-sniffing dogs was not an unreasonable wait, but the Supreme Court reversed that decision and ruled that the method of obtaining evidence for the drug charges was in violation of Rodriguez's 4th Amendment rights.