Quote Originally Posted by Ronin13 View Post
I'm curious what the SCOTUS would say about reasonable suspicion -after the initial contact- that does not fulfill probable cause for a warrant, but instead would, as per most agencies policies, permit a dog sniff to confirm if drugs are present. This decision changes a lot about drug interdiction. I agree with Alito, if reasonable suspicion exists then a K9 deployment for a sniff (which *technically* doesn't violate the 4th amendment- as it is not entry into the vehicle) would be legal. Having an interest in becoming a K9 Deputy, this just makes my future position less effective.
That's what this case is all about. There has to be objective and individualized suspicion of drug trafficking in order to justify detaining the motorist to wait for the dog. What the Court said is they can't stop you for a broken taillight and then use that alone as a pretext to detain you for a dog sniff. If they don't have a specific and articulable suspicion that you are involved in drugs then they can't hold you for the dog. If they stop you for the broken taillight then once they are done dealing with that they have to let you go.

Specific and articulable means they have to be able to state an objectively reasonable set of facts that justifies further investigation. Can't be "I have a feeling" or "any single black male driving on this highway is transporting drugs" or "In my experience at least half of these Mexicans are smugglers", or "there's no reason for anybody to be on this highway unless they are transporting dope" etc. There has to be an objective set of facts that justifies the investigation.

The thing is, the law already allows warrantless searches of automobiles on the highway based on PC (Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 [1925]) and I would have a hard time thinking of any set of objective circumstances that would justify bringing a dog that would not also justify simply searching the vehicle.