I am a LEO and have been for a long, long time. I agree with the SCOTUS decision as there was no articulable reasonable suspicion for the search.

The officer who conducted the stop was the K9 handler. He requested a cover officer and then completed the stop, returning the credentials and issuing a written warning. From there, the traffic stop was completed. The officer then asked for permission to walk his K9 around the vehicle and the driver refused. The officer did not have any articulable reason for the request and no reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking, other than driving in Nebraska after midnight, which isn't a reason. He directed the driver to step out of the vehicle and wait for the cover officer to arrive, where upon he conducted a sniff of the vehicle and the K9 indicated the presence of meth.

The issue is, did the officer have reasonable suspicion to warrant a K9 search of the vehicle and based upon the case facts, the SCOTUS determined there was not. The officer interviewed both the driver and passenger and did not obtain any conflicting information as to where they came from or where they were going, which could be a indicator of trafficking, did not see anything inside the vehicle which could indicate a non-stop drive, which could be a indicator, did not articulate any nervousness or inconsistent statements, etc. There was nothing indicating the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a K9 search of the vehicle. The authority for the traffic stop ended when the tasks tied to the infraction were completed and there was nothing that could be articulated to continue the contact.