Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

Cite as:  575 U. S. ____ (2015) 

5 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

on  whether  the  arresting  officer  states  the  reason  for  the 
detention  and,  if  so,  whether  he  correctly  identifies  a 
general  class  of  offense  for  which  probable  cause  exists.” 
Devenpeck  v.  Alford,  543  U. S.  146,  154  (2004)  (internal 
quotation  marks  and  citation  omitted).    In  Devenpeck,  a 
unanimous Court explained: “An arrest made by a knowl-
edgeable, veteran officer would be valid, whereas an arrest
made  by  a  rookie  in  precisely  the  same  circumstances 
would  not.  We  see  no  reason  to  ascribe  to  the  Fourth 
Amendment such arbitrarily variable protection.”  Ibid. 

The  majority’s  logic  would  produce  similarly  arbitrary
results.  Under  its  reasoning,  a  traffic  stop  made  by  a 
rookie could be executed in a reasonable manner, whereas 
the  same  traffic  stop  made  by  a  knowledgeable,  veteran 
officer in precisely the same circumstances might not, if in 
fact  his  knowledge  and  experience  made  him  capable  of 
completing  the  stop  faster.  We  have  long  rejected  inter-
pretations  of  the  Fourth  Amendment  that  would  produce 
such haphazard results, and I see no reason to depart from
our consistent practice today. 

B 
As if that were not enough, the majority also limits the
duration  of  the  stop  to  the  time  it  takes  the  officer  to
complete  a  narrow  category  of  “traffic-based  inquiries.” 
Ante,  at  8.  According  to  the  majority,  these  inquiries
include  those  that  “serve  the  same  objective  as  enforce-
ment of the traffic code: ensuring that vehicles on the road 
are operated safely and responsibly.”  Ante, at 6.  Inquiries 
directed  to  “detecting  evidence  of  ordinary  criminal 
wrongdoing”  are  not  traffic-related  inquiries  and  thus
cannot count toward the overall duration of the stop.  Ibid. 
(internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).

The  combination  of  that  definition  of  traffic-related 
inquiries  with  the  majority’s  officer-specific  durational 
limit  produces  a  result  demonstrably  at  odds  with  our