3 ms·

>>a dog sniff, unlike the routine measures just mentioned, is not an ordinary incident of a traffic stop Alito's dissent states that a preliminary dog sniff wi

>>a dog sniff, unlike the routine measures just mentioned, is not an ordinary incident of a traffic stop Alito's dissent states that a preliminary dog sniff will become an ordinary incident as a result of this ruling. It will be the new standard procedure for K-9 officers who initiate traffic stops. A future Officer Struble will simply get the dog out first for everyone he stops, post Rodriguez and a bit of officer training. Officers that don't have a dog in the back will still have to establish reasonable suspicion to call in a K-9 sniff, just as they did before the ruling. So I can't see this ruling having an impact for longer than it takes to re-train officers.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> If it's an ordinary incident of a K-9 traffic stop, it's not prolonging the stop. Its still a search not reasonably related to the justification of the stop, which would seem to make it unreasonable as an ordinary procedure. Sure, Scalia might vote to uphold it, but if Scalia's view was controlling he wouldn't need to.
- etjossem 12y ago
  The Court has held that dog sniffs are not searches; they only reveal whether contraband is present. Unlike wiretaps, physical searches of houses, etc. there's no privacy concern. The issue here was that everything necessary to complete the traffic stop was finished, and by conducting an additional dog sniff (or doing anything else, really), the officer did something out of the ordinary to prolong the stop.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    The Court has held that dog sniffs are not searches; they only reveal whether contraband is present. Unlike wiretaps, physical searches of houses, etc. there's no privacy concern. If dogs alert based on officer cues as often as they do for illicit substances, then once the science makes its way into the legal consciousness this ruling will have to change. Note: I couldn't find the right search terms to get a good reference, only a prior mention: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7180985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7180985 Edit: another comment in this thread has a better link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9418172 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9418172
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - etjossem 12y ago
    Downvoter: you probably disagree with the Court's interpretation, and personally, I'm with you. Dog sniffs should in theory have nothing to do with traffic stops, because the point is something completely different - to find drugs and weapons. The way the Court historically treats the dog sniff is unique - it's not a classic search of possessions or property, because the only thing it reveals about them is whether or not they're contraband. Officers can freely perform a dog sniff during a Terry/motor stop with no additional requirement. The dog sniff does not require probable cause or even reasonable suspicion - in fact, it is frequently used to help establish them. Sure, we might not like it, but that's the way the law is currently read.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> If it's an ordinary incident of a K-9 traffic stop, it's not prolonging the stop. Its still a search not reasonably related to the justification of the stop, which would seem to make it unreasonable as an ordinary procedure. Sure, Scalia might vote to uphold it, but if Scalia's view was controlling he wouldn't need to.

etjossem 12y ago
The Court has held that dog sniffs are not searches; they only reveal whether contraband is present. Unlike wiretaps, physical searches of houses, etc. there's no privacy concern. The issue here was that everything necessary to complete the traffic stop was finished, and by conducting an additional dog sniff (or doing anything else, really), the officer did something out of the ordinary to prolong the stop.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  The Court has held that dog sniffs are not searches; they only reveal whether contraband is present. Unlike wiretaps, physical searches of houses, etc. there's no privacy concern. If dogs alert based on officer cues as often as they do for illicit substances, then once the science makes its way into the legal consciousness this ruling will have to change. Note: I couldn't find the right search terms to get a good reference, only a prior mention: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7180985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7180985 Edit: another comment in this thread has a better link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9418172 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9418172
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- etjossem 12y ago
  Downvoter: you probably disagree with the Court's interpretation, and personally, I'm with you. Dog sniffs should in theory have nothing to do with traffic stops, because the point is something completely different - to find drugs and weapons. The way the Court historically treats the dog sniff is unique - it's not a classic search of possessions or property, because the only thing it reveals about them is whether or not they're contraband. Officers can freely perform a dog sniff during a Terry/motor stop with no additional requirement. The dog sniff does not require probable cause or even reasonable suspicion - in fact, it is frequently used to help establish them. Sure, we might not like it, but that's the way the law is currently read.