Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf
Page Number: 29

4 

RODRIGUEZ v. UNITED STATES 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

forward.2    It  is  unlikely  to  have  any  appreciable  effect  on
the length  of future traffic stops.  Most officers will learn 
the  prescribed  sequence  of  events  even  if  they  cannot
fathom  the  reason  for  that  requirement.    (I  would  love  to 
be  the  proverbial  fly  on  the  wall  when  police  instructors
teach this rule to officers who make traffic stops.)

For  these  reasons  and  those  set  out  in  JUSTICE 

THOMAS’s opinion, I respectfully dissent. 

—————— 

2 It is important to note that the Court’s decision does not affect pro-
cedures  routinely  carried  out  during  traffic  stops,  including  “checking 
the  driver’s  license,  determining  whether  there  are  outstanding  war-
rants  against  the  driver,  and  inspecting  the  automobile’s  registration 
and proof of insurance.”  Ante, at 6.  And the Court reaffirms that police 
“may  conduct  certain  unrelated  checks  during  an  otherwise  lawful 
traffic stop.”  Ibid.  Thus, it remains true that police may ask questions
aimed  at  uncovering  other  criminal  conduct  and  may  order  occupants 
out of their car during a valid stop.  See Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U. S. 
323,  333  (2009);  Maryland  v.  Wilson,  519  U.  S.  408,  414–415  (1997); 
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106, 111 (1977) (per curiam).