SCOTUS: Cops can't force you to wait for K9

[Ronin13]

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.

This is what I was thinking, but the article seemed pretty wishy washy on that. Thanks for clarifying what I was already thinking was the case.

Most of the "k9's" are trained to "alert" when the cop gives a specific hand signal, or vocal command thereby allowing him to now search your vehicle based on a false PC, "because the dog alerted". Due to these dog nazis, your 4th amendment rights are already gone. They will circle the car and let the dog jump on the vehicle scratching the s--t out of your exterior and interior, and when they find nothing, tough s--t, you now have a damaged vehicle thanks to Johnny law, and you can't recover any compensation for the repairs. So what the SCOTUS ruled means nothing in the real world.

I know 4 out of our 9 K9 deputies with the agency I'm on, and not a single one of them has an iota of a clue WTF you're talking about. That's not part of their training, and the fact that you brought this up in such an Alex Jones kind of way just makes me sad. You are certainly not alone in harboring this false belief, which does nothing but foster more distrust between the police and the public. I suggest reading some of the works of Sir Robert Peel, who said "The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence." Many I know follow this teaching, including myself. Don't you go off holding any signs in protest now (sorry, but that's what you sound like with that post).

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.

Well said.