Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf
Page Number: 2

2 

RODRIGUEZ v. UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

1. Absent  reasonable  suspicion,  police  extension  of  a  traffic  stop
in  order  to  conduct  a  dog  sniff  violates  the  Constitution’s  shield
against unreasonable seizures.  

A routine traffic stop is more like a brief stop under Terry v. Ohio, 
392  U. S.  1,  than  an  arrest,  see,  e.g.,  Arizona  v.  Johnson,  555  U. S. 
323, 330.  Its tolerable duration is determined by the seizure’s “mis-
sion,”  which  is  to  address  the  traffic  violation  that  warranted  the 
stop,  Illinois  v.  Caballes,  543  U. S.  405,  407  and  attend  to  related 
safety  concerns.    Authority  for  the  seizure  ends  when  tasks  tied  to 
the  traffic 
infraction  are—or  reasonably  should  have  been— 
completed.    The  Fourth  Amendment  may  tolerate  certain  unrelated
investigations that do not lengthen the roadside detention, Johnson, 
555  U. S.,  at  327–328  (questioning);  Caballes,  543  U. S.,  at  406,  408 
(dog sniff), but a traffic stop “become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged be-
yond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission” of issu-
ing a warning ticket, id., at 407. 

Beyond  determining  whether  to  issue  a  traffic  ticket,  an  officer’s
mission  during  a  traffic  stop  typically  includes  checking  the  driver’s
license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against
the  driver,  and  inspecting  the  automobile’s  registration  and  proof  of
insurance.  These checks serve the same objective as enforcement of
the traffic code: ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safe-
ly and responsibly.  See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 658–659. 
Lacking the same close connection to roadway safety as the ordinary 
inquiries, a dog sniff is not fairly characterized as part of the officer’s
traffic mission. 

In concluding that the de minimis intrusion here could be offset by
the  Government’s  interest  in  stopping  the  flow  of  illegal  drugs,  the 
Eighth Circuit relied on Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106.  The 
Court  reasoned  in  Mimms  that  the  government’s  “legitimate  and
weighty” interest in officer safety outweighed the “de minimis” addi-
tional intrusion of requiring a driver, lawfully stopped, to exit a vehi-
cle, id., at 110–111.  The officer-safety interest recognized in Mimms, 
however, stemmed from the danger to the officer associated with the 
traffic  stop  itself.    On-scene  investigation  into  other  crimes,  in  con-
trast,  detours  from  the  officer’s  traffic-control  mission  and  therefore 
gains no support from Mimms. 

The Government’s argument that an officer who completes all traf-
fic-related  tasks  expeditiously  should  earn  extra  time  to  pursue  an 
unrelated  criminal  investigation  is  unpersuasive,  for  a  traffic  stop
“prolonged beyond” the time in fact needed for the officer to complete
his  traffic-based  inquiries  is  “unlawful,”  Caballes,  543  U. S.,  at  407. 
The critical question is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or af-
ter  the  officer  issues  a  ticket,  but  whether  conducting  the  sniff  adds